Jonathan Haidt on Adjusting to Smartphones and Social Media (Ep. 209)
Special thanks to Mike Theroux for sponsoring this transcript:
特别感谢 Mike Theroux 赞助这份文字记录：
“This sponsorship was intended as a small thank you to Tyler for CWT and Marginal Revolution, both of which have been incredibly valuable to me for many years.”
“这次赞助的目的是为了向 Tyler 的 CWT 和 Marginal Revolution 表示一点谢意，多年来这两者对我来说都非常有价值。”
Hello, everyone, and welcome back to Conversations with Tyler.
大家好，欢迎回到《与泰勒对话》。
Today I’m chatting with Jon Haidt, who needs no introduction.
今天我正在和乔恩·海特聊天，他不需要介绍。
We’ve already done an episode with him.
我们已经和他一起拍过一集了。
I should stress that Jon has a new book out in late March.
我应该强调乔恩在三月下旬出版了一本新书。
It is called The Anxious Generation: How the Great Rewiring of Childhood Is Causing an Epidemic of Mental Illness.
它的名字是《焦虑的一代：童年的伟大重塑如何导致精神疾病的流行》。
Jon, welcome.
乔恩，欢迎。
Tyler, great to be back.
泰勒，很高兴回来。
Great to see you.
很高兴见到你。
Let me start with some nonbook questions, though they’re related.
让我从一些非书本问题开始，尽管它们是相关的。
Who makes for better parents, left wingers or right wingers?
左翼分子和右翼分子谁更适合做父母？
Right wingers.
右翼分子。
There’s a lot of data on this.
这方面有很多数据。
There’s long been a slight gap where conservatives are a little happier than liberals, and it’s not clear why.
长期以来，保守派比自由派的幸福感略有差距，但原因尚不清楚。
Is that parenting?
这就是为人父母吗？
Who knows?
谁知道？
But what I found in doing the research for the book is that the gap between left and right became a chasm after 2012.
但我在为这本书做研究的过程中发现，左右之间的差距在2012年之后就变成了鸿沟。
We’ll get to the reasons why that is, but the bottom line is, when kids are rooted in communities, they don’t get washed out to sea by the phone-based childhood, by living by the virtual world.
我们会找出其中的原因，但最重要的是，当孩子们扎根于社区时，他们就不会被基于手机的童年、虚拟世界的生活冲垮。
Over and over again, whether we look at left-right or whether we look at religion, what we find is that it’s the secular kids and the liberal kids who got washed out to sea, got really depressed after 2012, and much less effect on the conservative and religious kids because, I think, they’re more rooted.
一次又一次，无论我们看左派还是右派，还是宗教，我们都会发现，2012年后，世俗的孩子和自由派的孩子被冲到了大海，变得非常沮丧，而对保守派和宗教派的孩子影响要小得多，因为我认为，他们更加根深蒂固。
Now, if parenting is the most important thing, which you seem at many times to believe, why aren’t you just a right winger?
现在，如果养育子女是最重要的事情，而且你似乎很多时候都相信这一点，那么你为什么不只是一个右翼呢？
Because right wingers, according to you, get that right.
因为在你看来，右翼分子是正确的。
It would be your community, right?
这将是你的社区，对吧？
You’re talking about community.
你在谈论社区。
Embrace that community.
拥抱那个社区。
Well, no, because my community is the academic community, where almost everyone’s on the left.
嗯，不，因为我的社区是学术界，几乎每个人都是左派。
I know some conservatives; they’re mostly not professors.
我认识一些保守派；他们大多不是教授。
I do belong to a synagogue although I’m an atheist.
尽管我是无神论者，但我确实属于犹太教堂。
So, I have one toe in each of these worlds, but it’s not that simple.
所以，我在每个世界中都有一个脚趾，但事情没那么简单。
You don’t just say, “Well, my research shows that this produces better outcomes.
你不能只是说：“嗯，我的研究表明这会产生更好的结果。
Therefore, I will change my values and goals to be .
因此，我将改变我的价值观和目标。
.
。
.” No, it doesn’t work that way.
”。不，事情不是这样的。
Your own family aside, who is the wisest person you’ve interacted with?
除了你自己的家人之外，你接触过的最聪明的人是谁？
And why is that the wisest person?
为什么那是最聪明的人？
Oh, my goodness, there’re so many.
哦，天哪，有这么多。
I’ll just list a few that I’ve thought of.
我只列出一些我想到的。
Barry Schwartz was a professor at Swarthmore for many years.
巴里·施瓦茨 (Barry Schwartz) 在斯沃斯莫尔学院担任教授多年。
He’s retired at Berkeley.
他在伯克利退休了。
He wrote a book on wisdom.
他写了一本关于智慧的书。
I thought of him as one of the wisest people I knew long before.
我认为他是我很久以前认识的最聪明的人之一。
Part of the point of Barry’s book is that wisdom comes from practice, from deep experience and learning.
巴里的书的部分观点是，智慧来自实践、来自深刻的经验和学习。
Anyway, as an academic, Barry Schwartz would be one of them.
无论如何，作为一名学者，巴里·施瓦茨将是其中之一。
I have a friend, Bill Budinger.
我有一个朋友，比尔·巴丁格。
He’s over 80 years old now, and just tremendous life experience.
他现在已经80多岁了，人生阅历丰富。
He works behind the scenes to improve democracy, to improve the functioning of institutions.
他在幕后致力于改善民主、改善机构的运作。
I’m just always so impressed by his ability to understand a complex world and intervene to change it quietly, not calling attention to himself.
我总是对他理解复杂世界并悄悄干预改变它的能力印象深刻，而不是引起人们对他自己的注意。
I’m finding there are a lot of people, all older than me, that I find role models for wisdom.
我发现有很多人，都比我年长，我找到了智慧的榜样。
On moral foundations theory as applied to COVID
应用于新冠肺炎的道德基础理论
Given our experience with COVID, where the people on the left seem to be obsessed with masks and with social distancing, do you still think of right wingers as the purity party, as some of your earlier work suggested?
鉴于我们在新冠疫情方面的经验，左翼人士似乎痴迷于口罩和社交距离，你是否仍然认为右翼分子是纯洁党，正如你早期的一些作品所暗示的那样？
Right.
正确的。
Let’s look at this.
让我们看看这个。
What I found empirically in my work on moral foundations theory is that one of the foundations of morality is purity or sanctity.
我在道德基础理论研究中凭经验发现，道德的基础之一是纯洁或神圣。
People on the right — and here we mean the social right.
右派人士——这里我们指的是社会权利。
This is very important.
这非常重要。
Libertarians are not conservatives.
自由主义者不是保守派。
They shouldn’t be put on the right, although they are allies.
尽管他们是盟友，但他们不应该被置于右翼。
When we look at social conservatives, who tend to be more religious, they tend to see more nonmaterial properties in things.
当我们观察那些往往更加虔诚的社会保守派时，他们往往会在事物中看到更多的非物质属性。
They see the flag is not just a piece of cloth.
他们看到旗帜不仅仅是一块布。
The cross is not just a piece of wood.
十字架不仅仅是一块木头。
The Bible is not just a book.
圣经不仅仅是一本书。
Whereas secular folk tend to question everything, not treat things as sacred.
而世俗的人们倾向于质疑一切，而不是将事物视为神圣的。
Everything’s open to question, and that’s part of the reason why academics tend to be on the left.
一切都值得商榷，这也是学者们倾向于左派的部分原因。
That’s the big picture about the psych difference.
这就是心理差异的大局。
Now, on the far left, there has always been an extreme purity contingent, like the yoga people who believe in Chi and all these substances moving around your body and toxins.
现在，在最左边，一直有一支极端纯洁的队伍，就像相信“气”以及所有这些在你身体周围移动的物质和毒素的瑜伽人士一样。
You always have people on the left that have this sort of spiritual thinking that’s related to purity.
左派的人总是有这种与纯洁相关的精神思维。
What happened with COVID was that it wasn’t about germs.
新冠病毒的发生与细菌无关。
I think it was about government control versus not.
我认为这是关于政府控制与非政府控制的问题。
At least that’s the way the right saw it.
至少右派是这么看的。
The right saw it because the right already didn’t trust the medical establishment, the authorities.
右派看到了这一点，因为右派已经不信任医疗机构和当局。
The authorities, to the extent that a lot of them are academic or medical — they are almost all on the left.
当局，就其中很多是学术或医学方面的人士而言——他们几乎都是左派。
They really made a point over and over, saying, “We’re on the blue team.
他们确实一遍又一遍地强调了这一点，说：“我们是蓝队的。
We’re part of the blue team.” They said that implicitly.
我们是蓝队的一员。”他们含蓄地这么说。
I think it just quickly became, are you going to follow the orders to do these things and shut down your business, or are you going to resist?
我想事情很快就变成了，你是要按照命令做这些事情并关闭你的生意，还是要反抗？
That was one where you might expect that people who are more germ phobic or were more afraid of contagion would be on the right, but there are many other factors going on that cause the polarized reaction.
你可能会认为那些更害怕细菌或更害怕传染的人会站在右边，但还有许多其他因素导致了两极分化的反应。
I’m still a little confused as to how this fits in with your other views.
我仍然有点困惑这如何与你的其他观点相吻合。
I think we know people on the left were keener to close the schools or keep the schools closed.
我想我们知道左翼人士更热衷于关闭学校或继续关闭学校。
That was a bad thing.
那是一件坏事。
They seem to have such bad values by your standards, but you identify with the values of the left.
按照你的标准，他们的价值观似乎很糟糕，但你认同左派的价值观。
Why is it you think they have better values, and then these bad values when it comes to parenting?
为什么你认为他们在养育子女方面有更好的价值观，而却有这些糟糕的价值观？
No, I don’t identify with the values of the left.
不，我不认同左派的价值观。
I was always on the left when I was younger, and I was always a Democrat.
我年轻的时候一直是左派，而且我一直是民主党人。
But once I wrote The Righteous Mind, when I finished chapter 8 .
但一旦我写完《正念》，当我完成第八章时。
.
。
.
。
It was so upsetting to me that George W.
乔治·W·布什 (George W.
Bush won two elections that I thought he shouldn’t win because I thought that the Democratic candidates couldn’t speak about morality.
布什赢得了两次我认为他不应该获胜的选举，因为我认为民主党候选人不能谈论道德。
So, I was going to do this writing to explain to the left what they’re missing.
所以，我打算写这篇文章来向左派解释他们错过了什么。
Like a lot of books — George Lakoff — there are many people who’ve been writing books for the left, to shake them and say, “Look at what you’re missing.
就像很多书一样，有很多人一直在为左派写书，摇动他们并说：“看看你错过了什么。
Stop talking this way.”
别再这样说话了。”
By the time I wrote chapter 7 and 8 of The Righteous Mind and really committed to understanding conservatives and libertarians, I realized, wow, there’s a lot of wisdom from all three perspectives: liberal, conservative, and libertarian.
当我写下《正义之心》第七章和第八章并真正致力于理解保守派和自由主义者时，我意识到，哇，这三个角度都有很多智慧：自由派、保守派和自由主义者。
Since then, I’ve been a centrist, and then, since 2015, since we had essentially a cultural revolution on campus — very similar psychologically to the Chinese Cultural Revolution — since we had this incredible liberalism coming from the left on campus, and we had this incredible illiberalism coming from the right, which brought Donald Trump to office, which brought the Unite the Right rally to Charlottesville.
从那时起，我一直是中间派，然后，自2015年以来，我们校园里发生了一场本质上的文化革命——“在心理上与中国文化大革命非常相似”——因为我们校园里有来自左翼的令人难以置信的自由主义，也有来自右翼的令人难以置信的非自由主义，这让唐纳德·特朗普上台，并在夏洛茨维尔举行了“团结右翼”集会。
We’re now in a time where the potential pathologies of the left have been supercharged by social media.
我们现在正处于一个左派潜在病态被社交媒体放大的时代。
I hope we’ll get to that.
我希望我们能做到这一点。
The potential pathologies of the right have been supercharged by social media and other things.
社交媒体和其他事物加剧了右翼潜在的病态。
My community is those who are center left to center right and libertarians.
我的社区是那些中间偏左到中间偏右的人和自由主义者。
These are the people who, I think, are still sane and are still noticeably aligned with the idea of a liberal democracy.
我认为这些人仍然是理智的，并且仍然明显地认同自由民主的理念。
What’s the most important thing you’ve learned from reading the Bible?
你从阅读圣经中学到的最重要的事情是什么？
The most important thing I’ve learned from reading the Bible?
我从读圣经中学到的最重要的事情是什么？
Well, my first reading of it, I was horrified when I was in college.
嗯，我在大学的时候第一次读到它，我感到很震惊。
I took it very literally, and that was wrong.
我从字面上理解了它，但那是错误的。
So, I didn’t learn much from my first reading long ago, and then I never read it again, but I have gone back to it periodically for stories.
所以，很久以前，我从第一次阅读中并没有学到太多东西，然后我就再也没有读过它，但我会定期回顾它来寻找故事。
I really need to read the New Testament.
我真的需要读新约。
I’ve read parts of it, but I really need to read the whole thing.
我读过其中的一部分，但我真的需要阅读全文。
What I would say is that every culture needs a set of stories and moral values, moral principles and metaphors so that they can speak to each other, and they can quickly refer to things that have a lot of meanings for the listener.
我想说的是，每种文化都需要一套故事和道德价值观、道德原则和隐喻，以便它们可以相互交谈，并且可以快速引用对听众来说有很多意义的事物。
When you read anything from the ancient world, from ancient Greece or Rome, they have this common vocabulary of Homer and of the myths, and they can talk to each other; they can refer to all of that.
当你阅读古代世界、古希腊或古罗马的任何东西时，他们都有荷马和神话的共同词汇，他们可以互相交谈；他们可以互相交谈。他们可以参考所有这些。
Western civilization has always had the Bible as that in the last thousand years.
西方文明近千年来一直都有《圣经》。
I think as a set of stories and metaphors — some of which I draw on — are very evocative.
我认为，作为一组故事和隐喻（我借鉴了其中一些故事和隐喻）非常能唤起人们的回忆。
The Babel story.
巴别塔的故事。
The Job story is very confusing and difficult.
约伯记的故事非常令人困惑和困难。
I don’t take much from that, but the Babel story really affected me when I reread it, and it’s become a basis of a lot of my current writing.
我并没有从中得到太多收获，但当我重读巴别塔的故事时，它确实对我产生了影响，它已经成为我目前许多写作的基础。
On psychological traits as a source of identitarianism
论作为身份主义根源的心理特征
Now, in general, you’ve been critical of identitarianism, people identifying too much with a racial or ethnic group.
现在，总的来说，你一直批评身份主义，即人们过多地认同某个种族或族裔群体。
If you think of young people using concepts from psychology as identity labels — like I’m ADHD, I’m autistic, I’m neurodivergent — what do you think of that trend?
如果你认为年轻人使用心理学概念作为身份标签 —— 比如我患有注意力缺陷多动症、我是自闭症、我是神经分歧者 —— 你如何看待这种趋势？
Well, to be clear, I’m not against identity.
好吧，需要明确的是，我并不反对身份。
I have no problem with people identifying strongly with a group, with their race, with a disability.
我对人们强烈认同某个群体、种族和残疾人没有意见。
When I use the word identitarianism, I don’t mean just people having an identity.
当我使用身份主义这个词时，我指的不仅仅是拥有身份的人。
That’s fine.
没关系。
What I mean is two things.
我的意思是两件事。
It means a theoretical commitment to putting identity first analytically.
这意味着理论上承诺将身份放在分析的首位。
In the academic world, what it means is, whatever we’re talking about, whether it’s Shakespeare or inequality or chemistry, even, “We’re going to put identity — especially racial identity — first.
在学术界，它的意思是，无论我们谈论什么，无论是莎士比亚、不平等还是化学，甚至，“我们要把身份 ——尤其是种族身份 ——放在第一位。
That’s the proper lens.” I’m really opposed to teaching young people to do that.
这才是合适的镜头。”我真的反对教年轻人这样做。
It’s fine if there are some classes here and there at the university, but to the extent that DEI procedures have imported that into like, “Here’s how we’re going to orient you.
如果大学里到处都有一些课程，那很好，但在 DEI 程序中，这些课程已经被导入到类似这样的内容中：“这就是我们将如何引导你的。
When you come to campus, we’re going to orient you around identitarianism.”
当你来到校园时，我们将为你介绍身份主义。”
More worrying than just the analytical lens — which causes what I’ve called monomania, an obsessive focus on one thing — is that identitarianism, at least on campus, is not morally neutral.
比分析镜头更令人担忧的是，身份主义，至少在校园里，在道德上并不是中立的，这会导致我所说的偏执狂，即对一件事的过分关注。
That is, the groups are not morally equal.
也就是说，这些群体在道德上并不平等。
The old white supremacists used to rank White people as the best race and Black people as the worst race, Asians in the middle.
老白人至上主义者过去常常将白人列为最好的种族，黑人为最差的种族，亚洲人处于中间。
The new identitarianism reverses that because it’s all about power and oppression.
新的身份主义扭转了这一点，因为它完全与权力和压迫有关。
The oppressors are the bad people, morally bad.
压迫者都是坏人，道德败坏。
The oppressed are the good people.
受压迫的人都是好人。
They’re morally good.
他们道德良好。
The idea of teaching young people to see if you look at someone, you can see their race, you know whether they’re good or bad to some extent — that’s horrible.
教年轻人看看，如果你看某人，你可以看到他们的种族，你就知道他们在某种程度上是好还是坏，这种想法太可怕了。
That was contrary to what I thought the whole last half of the 20th century was about.
这与我对整个 20 世纪后半叶的看法相反。
So, yes, I’m opposed to identitarianism.
所以，是的，我反对身份主义。
Do you think we do that with the disability concept today?
您认为我们今天的残疾概念能做到这一点吗？
We even call it disability, but people, say, with Tourette Syndrome — it’s not clear they have lesser outcomes than other individuals.
我们甚至称其为残疾，但患有抽动秽语综合症的人——目前尚不清楚他们的结果比其他人要少。
Do we need some kind of identitarian movement to invert the fact that a whole set of different kinds of people seem to be called inferior right now?
我们是否需要某种身份主义运动来扭转现在一整套不同类型的人似乎被称为低等人的事实？
Both the left and the right just go along with this.
左派和右派都跟着这个走。
Should we be outraged by that, and we need a new identitarian movement?
我们是否应该对此感到愤怒，并且我们需要一场新的身份主义运动？
So there are two empirical questions here.
所以这里有两个经验问题。
One is a question about political activism and social change.
一是关于政治行动主义和社会变革的问题。
Obviously, the civil rights movement, the women’s rights movement — these were identitarian movements that were addressing injustice and that were successful.
显然，民权运动、女权运动——这些都是解决不公正问题的身份主义运动，并且取得了成功。
If they’d not gotten together, change might have come eventually, but they certainly speeded things up.
如果他们没有走到一起，改变可能最终会到来，但他们确实加速了事情的发展。
I have no problem with identitarian movements organizing for political purposes.
我对出于政治目的而组织的身份主义运动没有任何意见。
I just think they don’t belong in the university, in classrooms.
我只是认为他们不属于大学，不属于教室。
Now, as for mental conditions — you might say disabilities — that brings us to the second empirical question, which is, does turning up identity, does turning up your sense that I am ADHD or I’m on the spectrum, whatever — does that actually help young people to achieve better outcomes?
现在，至于精神状况 ——你可能会说残疾 ——这给我们带来了第二个实证问题，即，暴露身份是否会暴露你对我患有注意力缺陷多动症或我属于自闭症谱系障碍的感觉，无论如何 —— 这真的能帮助年轻人取得更好的结果吗？
There, I don’t know.
在那里，我不知道。
I’m not an expert in that, but part of the point of my book with Greg Lukianoff, The Coddling of the American Mind, was that the ancient idea from the Stoics and the Buddhists — it’s not things that upset us, it’s interpretation of them.
我不是这方面的专家，但我与格雷格·卢基亚诺夫（Greg Lukianoff）合着的《美国思想的溺爱》（The Coddling of the American Mind）的部分观点是，来自斯多葛学派和佛教徒的古老观念——让我们心烦意乱的不是事物，而是对它们的解释。
If you identify as a person with a disability — let’s take anxiety.
如果您认为自己是残疾人 — 让我们考虑一下焦虑。
Young people talk about “my anxiety.” Here I am with my anxiety, practically like a friend.
年轻人谈论“我的焦虑”。我带着焦虑来到这里，就像一个朋友一样。
I suspect that identifying with anxiety and depression as part of your identity is probably bad for you.
我怀疑将焦虑和抑郁视为你身份的一部分可能对你不利。
It changes the way you think.
它改变你的思维方式。
It makes you process in a more biased way.
它会让你以一种更有偏见的方式进行处理。
I could well be wrong about this, but overall, I think probably we’re doing it too much in terms of what’s good for young people.
我的看法很可能是错误的，但总的来说，我认为我们在对年轻人有利的方面可能做得太多了。
On whether AI can solve the screen time problem
关于人工智能能否解决屏幕时间问题
Let’s turn to your book, which again, everyone, is called The Anxious Generation.
让我们来看看你的书，各位，这本书的名字又叫《焦虑的一代》。
You’re worried about screen time.
您担心屏幕时间。
Why isn’t it the case that AI quite soon is simply going to solve this problem?
为什么人工智能不很快就能解决这个问题呢？
That is, you’ll have your AI agent read the internet for you, or your messages or whatever, and if you want it to talk to you or give you images or digest it all, isn’t it going to cut down on screen time immensely?
也就是说，你将让你的人工智能代理为你阅读互联网、你的消息或其他任何东西，如果你想让它与你交谈或给你图像或消化所有内容，它不是会极大地减少屏幕时间吗？
No, no, because the point — it’s not just like, “Oh, kids are looking to screen.
不，不，因为重点不只是“哦，孩子们正在看屏幕。
That’s bad.” No. The reason why I’m so concerned about screen time is, first and foremost, the opportunity cost.
这很糟糕。”不。我如此关心屏幕时间的原因首先是机会成本。
This is an odd thing about my book.
这对于我的书来说是一件奇怪的事情。
People might expect it to be about social media is bad and screens are bad, but half of it is about childhood.
人们可能认为它是关于社交媒体和屏幕的糟糕，但其中一半是关于童年的。
What is childhood?
什么是童年？
How does it work?
它是如何运作的？
And how important play is.
以及玩耍是多么重要。
Human children play a lot.
人类的孩子经常玩耍。
All mammal children do.
所有哺乳动物的孩子都会这样做。
They have to play to wire up their brains.
他们必须通过玩耍来锻炼大脑。
They have to do that a lot, and we all did that.
他们必须经常这样做，我们都这样做了。
Everyone over 40 did that.
40岁以上的人都这么做了。
We did that during a crime wave, when there were flashers and perverts and drunk drivers.
我们在犯罪浪潮中做到了这一点，当时有闪光者、变态和醉酒司机。
We didn’t use to lock them up.
我们过去没有把它们锁起来。
Now we do.
现在我们做到了。
It’s gotten much safer since the ’90s.
自 90 年代以来，它变得更加安全。
We went out when life had some danger in it.
当生命遇到危险时我们就出去了。
We played and played and played.
我们玩啊玩啊玩。
We loved TV.
我们喜欢电视。
We probably watched two or three hours a day of that, but we had a lot of time unsupervised to play.
我们可能每天看两三个小时，但我们有很多时间在无人监督的情况下玩。
The problem with screens is that they’re so attractive.
屏幕的问题在于它们太有吸引力了。
They came in, the whole virtual world opened up just as we were freaking out about child abduction in the ’80s and ’90s.
他们进来了，整个虚拟世界打开了，就像我们在 80 年代和 90 年代对绑架儿童感到恐惧一样。
The main argument in the book is that we have taken the healthy, normal, play-based childhood that all mammals need, and we swapped it out and gave them a phone-based childhood, once we gave them an iPhone.
书中的主要论点是，我们已经夺走了所有哺乳动物都需要的健康、正常、以游戏为基础的童年，一旦我们给了它们一部 iPhone，我们就给了它们一个以手机为基础的童年。
The issue isn’t like, “Oh, you have a screen.
问题不是“哦，你有一个屏幕。
Let’s have AI get rid of the screen.” No. The issue is, you are on this thing, which we can call an experience blocker.
让人工智能摆脱屏幕吧。”不。问题是，你正在做这个事情，我们可以称之为体验障碍。
A phone is an experience blocker.
手机是一种体验障碍。
That means you spend a lot less time talking to other people, in the presence of other people.
这意味着您在其他人在场的情况下与其他人交谈的时间会少得多。
You’re not with your friends.
你没有和你的朋友在一起。
You are sleeping less.
你睡得越来越少了。
You’re out in nature less.
你接触大自然的次数减少了。
You have less of almost everything.
你几乎所有的东西都少了。
You don’t read books.
你不读书。
You have no time for anything else.
你没有时间做其他事情。
AI is not going to suddenly return kids to a play-based childhood.
人工智能不会突然让孩子们回到以游戏为基础的童年。
It’s just going to be a new evolution of the phone-based or virtual childhood.
这将是基于手机或虚拟童年的新演变。
Screen time seems super inefficient.
屏幕时间似乎效率极低。
You spend all this time — why not just deal with the digest?
你花了这么多时间 ——为什么不只处理摘要呢？
Maybe in two, three years, AI cuts your screen time by 2X or 3X.
也许在两三年内，人工智能会将你的屏幕时间减少 2 倍或 3 倍。
Why is that so implausible?
为什么这如此难以置信？
Well, Tyler, you’re talking as an intellectual who has probably the highest reading throughput rate of any human being I’ve ever heard of.
好吧，泰勒，你是作为一个知识分子说话的，他可能是我听说过的阅读吞吐率最高的人。
For you, you’re looking at this like, “All this information coming in from screens, we could make it better.” I’m sure you’re right about that.
对于你来说，你会这样看，“所有这些信息都来自屏幕，我们可以让它变得更好。”我确信你是对的。
I’m thinking about children, children who desperately need to spend hours and hours each day with other kids, unsupervised, planning games, enforcing rules, getting in fights, getting out.
我想到的是孩子们，他们每天迫切需要在无人监管的情况下花几个小时与其他孩子一起计划游戏，执行规则，打架，出去。
That’s what you need to do.
这就是你需要做的。
Instead, what’s coming — it’s already the case for boys especially, that they can’t go over to each other’s houses after school because then they can’t play video games.
相反，接下来会发生什么——尤其是对于男孩来说，他们放学后不能去彼此的家，因为那样他们就不能玩电子游戏。
When you and I were young, video games were coming in, and you’d go over to someone’s house, and you’d sit next to each other, and you’d play Pong or whatever.
当你和我年轻的时候，电子游戏开始流行，你会去别人家，坐在一起，打乒乓球什么的。
You’d play a game, and you’d joke with each other, and you’d eat food, and then you’d do something else.
你们会玩游戏，互相开玩笑，然后吃东西，然后做其他事情。
Video games used to be fairly healthy, but once they became multiplayer, you wear your headphones, you’ve got your controller, they’re incredibly immersive.
电子游戏曾经相当健康，但一旦它们成为多人游戏，你就可以戴上耳机，拿着控制器，它们会带来令人难以置信的身临其境的体验。
Now, you have to be alone in your room in order to play them.
现在，你必须独自在房间里才能玩它们。
Now, you bring in virtual AI girlfriends and boyfriends.
现在，你引入了虚拟人工智能女朋友和男朋友。
Already, Gen Z — those born after 1995 — are completely starved of the kinds of social experiences that they need to grow up.
Z 世代（1995 年之后出生的人）已经完全缺乏成长所需的社会经历。
In theory, I’m sure you’re going to say, “Well, why can’t we just train an AI friend to be like a real friend and get in fights with you sometimes?” Maybe in theory that’s possible, but that’s not what it’s going to be.
从理论上讲，我确信你会说，“好吧，为什么我们不能训练一个人工智能朋友像真正的朋友一样，有时会和你打架呢？”也许理论上这是可能的，但事实并非如此。
It’s going to be market-driven.
它将由市场驱动。
It’s going to be friends and lovers who are incredibly great for you.
这将是对你来说非常好的朋友和爱人。
You never have to adjust to them.
你永远不需要适应它们。
You never have to learn how to deal with difficult people, and it’s going to be a complete disaster for human development.
你永远不必学习如何与难相处的人打交道，这对人类发展来说将是一场彻底的灾难。
Complete disaster strikes me as too strong a term for something that hasn’t happened yet.
在我看来，“彻底的灾难”这个词对于尚未发生的事情来说太强烈了。
I think you’re much too confident about that.
我认为你对此过于自信了。
What do you mean it hasn’t happened yet?
你说这还没有发生是什么意思？
If screen time is making kids so miserable, why won’t they seek out methods to make their screen time more efficient?
如果屏幕时间让孩子们如此痛苦，他们为什么不寻找方法来提高屏幕时间的效率呢？
You seem to suggest they won’t.
你似乎暗示他们不会。
It’ll just be more and more screen time.
只是屏幕时间会越来越长。
AI will help them do this.
人工智能将帮助他们做到这一点。
You get a digest, convert anything to spoken word?
你得到一个摘要，将任何内容转换为口头语言？
You just do everything through earbuds if you want to.
如果您愿意，您只需通过耳塞即可完成所有操作。
Wait, I’m sorry, what is your question?
等等，抱歉，你的问题是什么？
If screen time is making kids so miserable, why won’t they use new AI innovations —
如果屏幕时间让孩子们如此痛苦，他们为什么不使用新的人工智能创新 —
Oh, oh.
哦，哦。
— to lessen their screen time?
— 减少他们看屏幕的时间？
If they don’t want to stare at the screen, turn messages into voice through earbuds, turn it into images, whatever makes them happier.
如果他们不想盯着屏幕，可以通过耳塞将消息转换为语音，将其转换为图像，任何让他们更快乐的方式。
Why are they so failing to maximize?
为什么他们如此未能最大化？
Because — and this is one of the key ideas in the book — what I think makes it different is that I’m a social psychologist with a lot of interest in sociology.
因为 ——这是本书的关键思想之一 ——我认为它的不同之处在于我是一名社会心理学家，对社会学非常感兴趣。
I like to think systemically.
我喜欢系统地思考。
Over and over again, what you see when you look at this problem is collective action problems.
一次又一次，当你看这个问题时，你看到的是集体行动问题。
I teach a class at NYU, and my students spend enormous amounts of time on TikTok and Instagram.
我在纽约大学教课，我的学生在 TikTok 和 Instagram 上花费了大量时间。
Many of them spend four, five, even six hours a day consuming content from just these two or three sites.
他们中的许多人每天花费四、五个甚至六个小时来消费来自这两个或三个网站的内容。
Why don’t you just quit?
你为什么不放弃呢？
Because they say it blocks out everything else.
因为他们说它挡住了其他一切。
They don’t have time to do their homework.
他们没有时间做作业。
Well, why don’t you just quit?
好吧，你为什么不放弃呢？
They all say the same thing.
他们都说同样的话。
“Well, I can’t because everyone else is on it, because then I’ll be left out.
“好吧，我不能，因为其他人都在关注它，因为那样我就会被排除在外。
I won’t know what people are talking about.”
我不会知道人们在谈论什么。”
Over and over again, we see these collective action problems.
我们一次又一次地看到这些集体行动的问题。
There was recently a paper published by Leonardo Bursztyn.
Leonardo Bursztyn 最近发表了一篇论文。
I think it was at the University of Chicago.
我记得那是在芝加哥大学。
He and his colleagues took — these were college students, I believe, and they found out how much we would have to pay you to stop using TikTok or Instagram.
他和他的同事们——我相信这些都是大学生，他们发现我们需要付给你多少钱才能停止使用 TikTok 或 Instagram。
The answer, $50 or something.
答案是50美元什么的。
It was some number.
这是一些数字。
You might say, oh, well, clearly this is the value of TikTok and Instagram.
你可能会说，哦，好吧，显然这就是 TikTok 和 Instagram 的价值。
Multiply this out by 240 million people.
将此乘以 2.4 亿人。
What an amazing contribution to public value these platforms are.
这些平台对公共价值做出了多么惊人的贡献。
But it turns out that the only reason people would pay is because if everyone else is on it, they have to be on it, even though they don’t want to be.
但事实证明，人们愿意付费的唯一原因是，如果其他人都参与其中，那么他们也必须参与其中，即使他们不想这样做。
When they changed the questions and they said, “Okay, now, actually, we’re going to try to get everyone at your school to get off.
当他们改变问题时，他们说：“好吧，现在，实际上，我们将尝试让你们学校的每个人都下车。
If we can get most of them off, how much would we have to pay you?
如果我们能把大部分都去掉，我们要付给你多少钱？
From ‘you pay us’ to ‘you pay us a lot,’ how much do we have to pay you for that outcome, where everybody’s off?” The answer is, “Oh, I’d pay you for that.” Most of them would pay to be liberated from TikTok or Instagram.
从‘你付给我们钱’到‘你付给我们很多钱’，在每个人都休息的情况下，我们需要付给你多少钱才能达到这个结果？”答案是：“哦，我愿意付钱给你。”他们中的大多数人愿意花钱从 TikTok 或 Instagram 中解放出来。
When asked, “Would you prefer that this was never invented?” the majority said yes.
当被问到“你希望这个东西从来没有被发明过吗？”大多数人说是的。
Over and over, kids are in a trap, and AI is not going to liberate from the trap.
一次又一次，孩子们陷入了陷阱，而人工智能却无法将其从陷阱中解放出来。
It’s just going to make the trap more enticing.
这只会让陷阱变得更有吸引力。
On school closures and well-being
关于学校停课和福祉
Now, you stress the importance of play, face-to-face interaction.
现在，您强调玩耍和面对面互动的重要性。
You also note that in your data, COVID lockdowns hardly dent the well-being of young people.
您还注意到，在您的数据中，新冠疫情封锁几乎不会削弱年轻人的福祉。
Isn’t that evidence that face-to-face interaction isn’t that important, and we’re just depressed for some other set of reasons?
这难道不是证据表明面对面的互动并不那么重要，我们只是因为其他一些原因而感到沮丧吗？
No. No, because when you look at the amount of time that young people have been spending with each other, they were socially distanced by 2019.
不。不，因为当你观察年轻人彼此相处的时间时，就会发现到 2019 年他们已经保持了社交距离。
It’s one of the most stunning graphs in the book.
这是书中最令人惊叹的图表之一。
There are all these American Time Use Surveys.
有所有这些美国时间使用调查。
So, you plot out, how much time do you spend each day, how many minutes a day talking with friends or being with friends?
所以，你计算一下，你每天花多少时间，每天花多少分钟与朋友交谈或与朋友在一起？
Not surprisingly, young people used to spend a lot of time, more than two hours a day with their friends.
毫不奇怪，年轻人过去花很多时间与朋友在一起，每天超过两个小时。
Whereas people in their 40s, 50s, and 60s — they’re spending 20 or 30 minutes a day, on average, with their friends because they’re married, they’ve got work.
而 40 多岁、50 多岁和 60 多岁的人，平均每天会花 20 或 30 分钟与朋友在一起，因为他们结婚了，他们还有工作。
They’re not hanging out with friends very much.
他们不常和朋友出去玩。
There’s a huge gap between the 15- to 24-year-olds and everybody else until 2012.
2012 年之前，15 至 24 岁的人群与其他人群之间存在巨大差距。
That’s the turning point.
这就是转折点。
Once kids get a phone now, it’s an experience blocker, it’s relationship blocker, it’s a time-together blocker.
一旦孩子们现在有了手机，它就会阻碍体验、阻碍关系、阻碍共处时间。
The graph for minutes per day goes plummeting.
每天的分钟数图表直线下降。
An astonishing fact about that graph — you can find it in, I forget what chapter in the book — is that it’s going down really steeply from 2018 to 2019, and it’s getting real close to the older people.
关于该图表的一个令人惊讶的事实是，从 2018 年到 2019 年，它的下降速度非常陡峭，而且越来越接近老年人。
Then, 2019 to 2020 is the COVID year.
那么，2019年至2020年就是新冠疫情年。
There’s no bend in the curve; it’s just going down.
曲线没有弯曲；它只是在下降。
From 2019 to COVID lockdown was a drop exactly the same rate as the previous year, and they’re very close to adults.
从 2019 年到新冠封锁期间，下降速度与前一年完全相同，而且非常接近成年人。
That can’t be true.
这不可能是真的。
Schools are closing, right?
学校要关闭了，对吗？
There are six to eight hours a day taken away from being with your friends once the schools shut down.
一旦学校停课，每天与朋友相处的时间就会减少六到八个小时。
Maybe yes.
也许是的。
You’re right.
你说得对。
First of all — wait.
首先 —— 等等。
Well-being doesn’t go down much for young people.
年轻人的幸福感并没有下降太多。
What do you mean it doesn’t go down much for young people?
你说这对年轻人来说影响不大是什么意思？
What did?
做了什么？
Well, in your data, say, depression, well-being problems for young people — they don’t really go down when the schools close.
嗯，在你的数据中，比如说，年轻人的抑郁症和幸福问题——当学校关闭时，这些问题并没有真正减少。
A couple of things there.
有几件事。
First, I believe the Time Use studies don’t count school time as time with friends because what they’re trying to do is like, how much time you’re in school, how much time you’re sleeping, how much time you’re eating, how much time you’re playing with friends.
首先，我认为时间利用研究并不将上学时间算作与朋友在一起的时间，因为他们想要做的是，你在学校的时间有多少，你睡觉的时间有多少，你吃饭的时间有多少，你与朋友一起玩的时间有多少。
I’m pretty sure the hours — what we plot in the graph — it has to be the case.
我很确定时间 — 我们在图表中绘制的内容 — 情况一定如此。
Otherwise, the COVID numbers would plummet even more.
否则，新冠病毒感染人数将会进一步下降。
We’re talking time out of school, that’s the first thing.
我们正在谈论放学时间，这是第一件事。
The second thing is, time in school used to be mostly with friends.
第二件事是，在学校的时间过去主要是和朋友在一起。
You’re either interacting with your friends or with your teachers.
您要么与朋友互动，要么与老师互动。
Not anymore.
不再。
Once everyone has a phone in school, if some kids are texting, then you have to check your text.
一旦学校里每个人都有电话，如果有些孩子在发短信，那么你就必须检查你的短信。
Most kids check their texts during class.
大多数孩子会在课堂上检查课文。
My kids go to New York City public schools.
我的孩子们在纽约市的公立学校上学。
The rule is, you’re not supposed to take out your phone, but everyone does, and the teachers give up.
规则是，你不应该拿出手机，但每个人都这样做，老师们放弃了。
Jean Twenge and I — we analyzed PISA data, the big international education survey, and they have six items there about loneliness at school.
Jean Twenge 和我——我们分析了 PISA 数据，这是一项大型国际教育调查，其中有六个关于学校孤独感的项目。
“Often, I feel lonely at school” and unrelated items.
“我经常在学校感到孤独”和不相关的项目。
Those were very steady around the world until 2012.
直到 2012 年，这些数据在全球范围内都非常稳定。
Between 2012 and 2016, all around the world except East Asia, but in Europe, North America, Latin America — all those areas, loneliness in school goes up after 2012.
2012年至2016年间，除了东亚以外，世界各地，但在欧洲、北美、拉丁美洲——所有这些地区，学校里的孤独感在2012年后都在上升。
Also, after 2012, academic achievement goes down.
此外，2012年之后，学业成绩有所下降。
My argument is, when you give a kid a phone — a flip phone was fine; flip phones were not damaging, but a smartphone is a portal to the entire internet.
我的观点是，当你给孩子一部手机时——翻盖手机就可以了；但是，翻盖手机不会造成损害，但智能手机是整个互联网的门户。
It’s a way for companies to get to you.
这是公司联系您的一种方式。
Once kids got smartphones around 2012, they spend less time, like at lunch, they’re not playing with each other as much; they’re on their phones.
2012 年左右，孩子们有了智能手机后，他们花的时间就会减少，比如午餐时，他们就不会经常互相玩耍；他们在用手机。
In between classes, they’re not talking in the hallway; they’re on their phones.
课间，他们不会在走廊里说话；而是在教室里聊天。他们在用手机。
The phone has been devastating to time with friends in school, time with friends out of school, and time listening to teachers in school because all the time, all the attention goes to the phone — most of the attention.
手机对在学校里与朋友在一起的时间、与校外朋友在一起的时间以及在学校里听老师讲课的时间来说都是毁灭性的，因为所有的时间，所有的注意力都集中在手机上——大部分注意力。
You’re saying the COVID school shutdowns were not a good natural experiment for kids having less face time with each other?
你是说，新冠肺炎学校停课对于孩子们彼此见面的时间较少来说不是一个很好的自然实验吗？
I would say it is.
我想说是的。
It would be hard to design a better natural experiment.
很难设计出更好的自然实验。
It’s truly exogenous.
这确实是外生的。
Well, yes, but you’re changing so many other things.
嗯，是的，但是你正在改变很多其他事情。
Also, a part of the story here is that American schools, in particular, are depressogenic.
此外，这里的一个故事是，美国的学校尤其容易令人抑郁。
That is, when you look at the suicide rate, there’s a big increase.
也就是说，当你观察自杀率时，你会发现自杀率大幅上升。
My colleague Peter Gray, a play researcher, has pointed this out over and over again.
我的同事彼得·格雷（Peter Gray）是一名游戏研究员，他一再指出了这一点。
The suicide rate goes down substantially in the summer.
夏季自杀率大幅下降。
I’m not sure about Christmas vacation, but the point is, it’s very clear: Every year, as soon as kids go back to school, the suicide rate goes up.
我不确定圣诞假期，但重点是，很明显：每年，一旦孩子们回到学校，自杀率就会上升。
It’s not as though school is making kids happy because we do school really badly.
这并不是说学校让孩子们快乐，因为我们在学校的表现真的很糟糕。
Yes, they’re freed from school, but so much changes.
是的，他们不再上学了，但变化却很大。
For some kids, once they were out of school, they actually could see their friends more — some kids.
对于一些孩子来说，一旦他们离开学校，他们实际上可以更多地见到他们的朋友——一些孩子。
Other kids were more isolated.
其他孩子则更加孤立。
I think we’d want to look at what happened to the kids who are stuck in their room alone.
我想我们想看看那些独自被困在房间里的孩子们发生了什么。
I bet those kids went down.
我敢打赌那些孩子一定会倒下。
And what happened to the kids who are out of school, and they have siblings, they have friends in the neighborhood, and they saw them more.
那些失学的孩子发生了什么事，他们有兄弟姐妹，他们在附近有朋友，而且他们见到他们的次数更多。
So, it’s not a clean experiment.
所以，这不是一个干净的实验。
On other big historical shifts in mood
关于情绪的其他重大历史转变
Let me step back a bit and ask you a very long-run historical question.
让我退一步问你们一个非常长期的历史问题。
It seems to me that European culture and society, maybe starting around 1900 — it becomes more neurotic, more depressive, more negative, more hostile.
在我看来，欧洲文化和社会，也许从 1900 年左右开始，变得更加神经质、更加抑郁、更加消极、更加敌对。
Why did that happen?
为什么会发生这种事？
These are some of the biggest questions in sociology about the transition from what Ferdinand Tönnies called Gemeinschaft societies to Gesellschaft societies, those that are based on direct personal connections, interactions, versus those that are market-based.
这些是社会学中关于从费迪南德·汤尼斯所说的“Gemeinschaft”社会向“Gesellschaft”社会转变的一些最大问题，这些社会是基于直接的个人联系、互动，而不是基于市场。
A lot of stuff happened to get more individualism.
发生了很多事情，变得更加个人主义。
So, I don’t doubt you get more neuroticism, but you also get the happiest countries that have ever been.
所以，我毫不怀疑你会变得更加神经质，但你也会得到有史以来最幸福的国家。
When you look at the World Happiness Report — I forget when it starts, early 2010s or late 2000s — what you find repeatedly is that the Scandinavian countries — the Nordic countries, I should say — and the Anglo countries dominate the list of the top 10 or 15.
当你看《世界幸福报告》时——我忘了它是什么时候开始的，2010 年代初还是 2000 年代末——你会反复发现斯堪的纳维亚国家——我应该说北欧国家——以及盎格鲁国家在前 10 名或 15 名名单中占据主导地位。
The US and UK are down at the bottom of that.
美国和英国处于底部。
Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Scandinavia — those are the happiest countries, and the kids were the happiest, too, until 2012.
加拿大、澳大利亚、新西兰、斯堪的纳维亚半岛——直到 2012 年，这些国家都是最幸福的国家，孩子们也是最幸福的。
Then what happens is, the adults don’t change much, but the kids plummet in all of these countries.
然后发生的事情是，成年人没有太大变化，但所有这些国家的孩子们却直线下降。
I ask you also, why does English thought and society seem to become so much weirder in the 17th century?
我还问你，为什么17世纪的英国思想和社会似乎变得如此怪异？
The general point I want to make is, there are all these long-term historical mood shifts, which very often are reversed — like the 1950s maybe are much cheerier — and they’re essentially a mystery to us.
我想说的一般观点是，所有这些长期的历史情绪转变，这些转变常常是相反的——就像 20 世纪 50 年代可能更加令人愉快——而它们对我们来说本质上是一个谜。
But we see, because of contagion effects, you can have very small impetuses, and then big, big shifts in mood that a century later, we still can’t explain.
但我们看到，由于传染效应，你可能会有很小的推动力，然后情绪会发生很大很大的变化，一个世纪后，我们仍然无法解释。
Why isn’t 2012 just another one of those?
为什么 2012 年不是其中的又一个呢？
You’re pinning it on smartphones, but these big shifts in mood that we can’t explain — that’s the norm in history.
你把它固定在智能手机上，但我们无法解释这些情绪的巨大转变——这是历史上的常态。
Well, first of all, can you point to any other shift that we can’t explain that happened in a single year?
好吧，首先，您能指出任何其他我们无法解释的一年内发生的转变吗？
Usually, you’re talking things that take 5 or 10 years, or 20 years, right?
通常，你说的事情需要5年、10年、20年，对吧？
There were turning points: 17th-century British history — all of a sudden people go crazy.
转折点出现了：17 世纪的英国历史 ——人们突然变得疯狂。
They kill the king.
他们杀死了国王。
Which year is that?
那是哪一年？
The French Revolution.
法国大革命。
Okay.
好的。
All right, fine — revolutions, of course.
好吧，好吧——当然是革命。
Yes, things change, but what I want to look at .
是的，事情发生了变化，但我想看看什么。
.
。
.
。
There are two ways to explain it.
有两种方法可以解释它。
One is, you can look at it like what events happened that had sequelae.
一是，你可以把它当作发生了哪些有后遗症的事件来看待。
Killing the king, and putting the Committee of Public Safety in charge of chopping people’s heads off — that’s going to have a pretty big effect on people’s moods.
杀了国王，让公安委员会负责砍人头——这对人们的情绪影响是相当大的。
But what I’m interested in here, as a social scientist, is when you change a parameter.
但作为一名社会科学家，我感兴趣的是当你改变参数时。
Take a bunch of societies, and now, let’s take some of them, and let’s ramp up diversity.
以许多社会为例，现在，让我们选择其中的一些，并增强多样性。
Let’s have a lot of immigration from around the world.
让我们有大量来自世界各地的移民。
What effect is that going to have?
这会产生什么效果呢？
I think it’ll have a mix of good and bad effects.
我认为这会产生好的和坏的影响。
That’s really interesting as a social scientist.
作为一名社会科学家，这真的很有趣。
Take a bunch of societies — half of them, we superconnect them, give everybody telephones 100 years ago, and others don’t get it.
以一群社会为例——其中一半，我们对它们进行超级连接，100 年前为每个人提供了电话，而其他人却得不到。
What effect is that going to have?
这会产生什么效果呢？
Connecting societies usually is a good thing.
连接社会通常是一件好事。
It certainly makes them more productive.
这肯定会让他们更有生产力。
But my argument is that we’ve been connected for a very, very long time now.
但我的观点是，我们已经联系了非常非常长的时间了。
What changed around 2012 was that we became connected, not by direct connections to each other, but by social media platforms that were now superviral.
2012 年左右发生的变化是，我们之间的联系不是通过直接联系，而是通过现在超级病毒式传播的社交媒体平台。
They weren’t that way in 2004 through ’08, but you get the like button, the retweet button.
从 2004 年到 08 年，情况并非如此，但你可以看到“点赞”按钮、“转发”按钮。
You get threaded comments — that’s 2014.
你会收到串连的评论 — 那是 2014 年。
Now, the way we’re connected is a way that especially encourages rage and conflict.
现在，我们的联系方式特别容易引发愤怒和冲突。
There are two pieces of evidence — when I look at them, they don’t seem to support your story out of sample.
有两个证据 —— 当我看到它们时，它们似乎并不支持你的样本之外的故事。
Okay, great.
好的，太好了。
Let’s have it.
让我们拥有它吧。
First, across countries, it’s mostly the Anglosphere and the Nordic countries, which are more or less part of the Anglosphere.
首先，从国家来看，主要是英语圈和北欧国家，它们或多或少都是英语圈的一部分。
Most of the world is immune to this, and smartphones for them seem fine.
世界上大多数人都不受此影响，智能手机对他们来说似乎很好。
Why isn’t it just that a negative mood came upon the Anglosphere for reasons we mostly don’t understand, and it didn’t come upon most of the rest of the world?
为什么负面情绪不只是因为我们大多不明白的原因而降临到英语圈，而且没有降临到世界其他大部分地区呢？
If we’re differentiating my hypothesis from yours, doesn’t that favor my view?
如果我们将我的假设与你的假设区分开来，这难道不支持我的观点吗？
Well, once you look into the connections and the timing, I would say no. I think I see what you’re saying now, but I think your view would say, “Just for some reason we don’t know, things changed around 2012.” Whereas I’m going to say, “Okay, things changed around 2012 in all these countries.
好吧，一旦你研究了其中的联系和时间安排，我会说不。我想我现在明白你在说什么，但我认为你的观点会说，“只是出于某种我们不知道的原因，事情在 2012 年左右发生了变化。”而我想说的是，“好吧，2012 年左右，所有这些国家的情况都发生了变化。
We see it in the mental illness rates, especially of the girls.” I’m going to say it’s not just some mood thing.
我们从精神疾病发病率中看到了这一点，尤其是女孩的精神疾病发病率。”我想说这不仅仅是情绪问题。
It’s like (a), why is it especially the girls?
就像（a）一样，为什么尤其是女孩？
(b) —
(b) —
They’re more mimetic, right?
他们更具模仿性，对吗？
Yes, that’s true.
是的，确实如此。
Girls are more mimetic in general.
一般来说，女孩更善于模仿。
That’s right.
这是正确的。
That’s part of it.
这是其中的一部分。
You’re right, that’s part of it.
你是对的，这就是其中的一部分。
They’re just much more open to connection.
他们只是更愿意建立联系。
They’re more influenced.
他们受到的影响更大。
They’re more subject to contagion.
他们更容易受到传染。
That is a big part of it, you’re right.
这是其中很大一部分，你是对的。
What Zach Rausch and I have found — he’s my lead researcher at the After Babel Substack.
扎克·劳什和我发现了什么——他是我在 After Babel Substack 的首席研究员。
I hope people will sign up.
我希望人们能够报名参加。
It’s free.
它是免费的。
We’ve been putting out tons of research.
我们已经进行了大量的研究。
Zach has really tracked down what happened internationally, and I can lay it out.
扎克确实追踪到了国际上发生的事情，我可以把它列出来。
Now I know the answer.
现在我知道答案了。
I didn’t know it two months ago.
两个月前我还不知道。
The answer is, within countries, as I said, it’s the people who are conservative and religious who are protected, and the others, the kids get washed out to sea.
答案是，正如我所说，在国家内部，受到保护的是保守派和宗教人士，而其他人，孩子们则被冲入大海。
Psychologically, they feel their life has no meaning.
从心理上来说，他们觉得自己的生活没有意义。
They get more depressed.
他们变得更加沮丧。
Zach has looked across countries, and what you find in Europe is that, overall, the kids are getting a little worse off psychologically.
扎克考察了各个国家，在欧洲发现，总体而言，孩子们的心理状况有所恶化。
But that hides the fact that in Eastern Europe, which is getting more religious, the kids are actually healthier now than they were 10 years ago, 15 years ago.
但这掩盖了这样一个事实：在宗教信仰日益浓厚的东欧，孩子们现在实际上比 10 年前、15 年前更健康。
Whereas in Catholic Europe, they’re a little worse, and in Protestant Europe, they’re much worse.
而在天主教欧洲，情况要糟糕一些，而在新教欧洲，情况则糟糕得多。
It doesn’t seem to me like, oh, New Zealand and Iceland were talking to each other, and the kids were sharing memes.
在我看来，哦，新西兰和冰岛并没有在互相交谈，孩子们也没有在分享模因。
It’s rather, everyone in the developed world, even in Eastern Europe, everyone — their kids are on phones, but the penetration, the intensity, was faster in the richest countries, the Anglos and the Scandinavians.
相反，发达国家的每个人，甚至在东欧，每个人——他们的孩子都在使用手机，但在最富裕的国家、盎格鲁人和斯堪的纳维亚国家，手机的普及和强度更快。
That’s where people had the most independence and individualism, which was pretty conducive to happiness before the smartphone.
那是人们最独立和个人主义的地方，这在智能手机出现之前非常有利于幸福。
But it now meant that these are the kids who get washed away when you get that rapid conversion to the phone-based childhood around 2012.
但现在这意味着，当你在 2012 年左右迅速转向以手机为基础的童年时，这些孩子就会被淘汰。
What’s wrong with that explanation?
这个解释有什么问题吗？
Old Americans also seem grumpier to me.
在我看来，美国老人们似乎也脾气暴躁。
Maybe that’s cable TV, but it’s not that they’re on their phones all the time.
也许那是有线电视，但这并不是说他们一直在玩手机。
And you know all these studies.
你知道所有这些研究。
If you try to assess what percentage of the variation in happiness of young people is caused by smartphone usage — Sabine Hossenfelder had a recent video on this — those numbers are very, very, very small.
如果你试图评估年轻人幸福感变化的百分比是由智能手机使用引起的 —— Sabine Hossenfelder 最近有一个关于此的视频 —— 这些数字非常非常小。
That’s another measurement that seems to discriminate in favor of my theory, exogenous mood shifts, rather than your theory.
这是另一种测量方法，似乎有利于我的理论，即外源性情绪变化，而不是你的理论。
Why not?
为什么不呢？
First of all, we have to talk about correlation coefficients here.
首先，这里我们要讲一下相关系数。
I’ve been involved in the debate.
我参与了辩论。
Jean Twenge and I are on one side.
让·特温格和我站在一边。
There are a few researchers — Andrew Przybylski, Amy Orben, Candice Odgers, there are a few others — on the other side.
另一边有一些研究人员——Andrew Przybylski、Amy Orben、Candice Odgers，还有其他一些人。
It’s been a very productive debate.
这是一场非常富有成效的辩论。
It’s all conducted within bounds.
这一切都是在范围内进行的。
There are three different kinds of studies: the correlational studies, the longitudinal studies, and then there are the true experiments.
研究分为三种不同的类型：相关研究、纵向研究，然后是真实的实验。
There are three different kinds.
有三种不同的类型。
Zach and I and Jean have put them all — we have a Google doc.
扎克、我和吉恩已经把它们全部放好了——我们有一个谷歌文档。
If you go to JonathanHaidt.com/reviews, we have all these Google docs.
如果您访问 JonathanHaidt.com/reviews，我们有所有这些 Google 文档。
You can see abstracts to all the studies.
您可以看到所有研究的摘要。
Most of the discussion has been over the correlational studies.
大多数讨论都是围绕相关研究进行的。
Some studies have said, oh, the correlation between time on screens, or time even on social media and time on screens, and some measure of bad mental health is like 0.04.
一些研究表明，哦，屏幕上的时间，甚至是社交媒体上的时间和屏幕上的时间之间的相关性，以及一些衡量不良心理健康状况的指标，大约是 0.04。
Now, if that was true, I would say, wow, that’s pretty much nothing, but here’s the thing.
现在，如果这是真的，我会说，哇，这几乎没什么，但事情就是这样。
Every time I dig into the data — whatever study is published to try to debunk this claim, you dig into the data — what do you find?
每次我深入研究数据 —— 无论发表什么研究试图揭穿这一说法，你都会深入研究数据 —— 你发现了什么？
If they’re looking at screen time overall, then the correlation is low, but whenever you can zoom in on social media, it’s bigger.
如果他们关注的是总体屏幕时间，那么相关性就很低，但只要你可以放大社交媒体，相关性就会更大。
Whenever you can zoom in on girls, it’s bigger, and an amazing thing has happened.
每当你放大女孩的时候，事情就会变得更大，令人惊奇的事情就发生了。
The skeptics and me and Jean — we’ve all reached the same conclusion about the size of the correlation.
怀疑论者、我和吉恩——我们都对相关性的大小得出了相同的结论。
They say the size of the correlation is between R is 0.1 and 0.15, which is small, but it’s about the same size as many other public health effects.
他们说相关性的大小在 R 为 0.1 和 0.15 之间，虽然很小，但与许多其他公共卫生影响的大小大致相同。
But that’s always for boys and girls combined.
但这始终适用于男孩和女孩。
What Jean and I have found is that when you look at the girls, now you’re in the realm of 0.15 to 0.2.
Jean 和我发现，当你观察女孩时，你现在处于 0.15 到 0.2 的范围内。
Because girls are more affected by it, we actually all agree the correlation coefficient is around 0.17.
因为女孩受其影响更大，所以我们实际上都同意相关系数在 0.17 左右。
That is not trivial.
这并非小事。
You would never let your kid do something four hours a day that was correlated 0.17 with depression, anxiety, and self-harm.
你永远不会让你的孩子每天做四个小时与抑郁、焦虑和自残相关性为 0.17 的事情。
So, the effect is actually much bigger than many people realize in the scientific community because you have to zoom in on girls and social media.
因此，这种影响实际上比科学界许多人意识到的要大得多，因为你必须把注意力集中在女孩和社交媒体上。
On the benefits of social media
关于社交媒体的好处
Why no talk in your book about the benefits of social media?
为什么你的书中没有谈论社交媒体的好处？
They seem to me extremely large.
在我看来它们非常大。
I know many talented —
我认识很多有才华的 —
Tell me about it for kids.
告诉我关于孩子们的事情。
No, tell me about the benefits of social media for middle school students, 11 to 13 years old.
不，请告诉我社交媒体对 11 至 13 岁中学生的好处。
At Emergent Ventures, we support many teenagers, young women.
在 Emergent Ventures，我们为许多青少年和年轻女性提供支持。
Many of them not 13 years old, but very often 16 to 19 years old.
他们中的许多人不是 13 岁，但很多时候是 16 至 19 岁。
They’re doing science.
他们正在做科学。
They’re remarkably smart.
他们非常聪明。
They get in touch with their collaborations and with each other using social media.
他们通过社交媒体来联系他们的合作以及彼此。
They exchange information.
他们交换信息。
They’re doing phenomenally well.
他们做得非常好。
They’re an incredible generation, smarter, more dynamic, probably more productive than any other scientific generation ever, and that’s because of social media.
他们是令人难以置信的一代人，更聪明，更有活力，可能比任何其他科学一代都更有生产力，而这都是因为社交媒体。
Now, you might think the costs outweigh that, but there’s no mention in your book of the benefits that I can see.
现在，您可能认为成本超过了这一点，但您的书中没有提到我可以看到的好处。
Oh, no, no, no. Well, I do have a section on the benefits.
哦，不，不，不。嗯，我确实有一个关于好处的部分。
It’s short.
它很短。
Here’s what I say.
这就是我所说的。
First, the discussions of benefits are always for older teens.
首先，关于好处的讨论总是针对年龄较大的青少年。
The benefits of being able to collaborate with people far away when you’re 16 or 18 — I totally see that.
当你 16 岁或 18 岁的时候能够与远方的人合作的好处 — 我完全明白这一点。
For middle school students, they don’t need that.
对于中学生来说，他们不需要这个。
They need to develop basic social skills and be with each other.
他们需要发展基本的社交技能并与彼此相处。
I’ve never heard anyone make a good case that 11-, 12-, and 13-year-olds benefit from social media.
我从未听过有人提出过 11 岁、12 岁和 13 岁的孩子从社交媒体中受益的好例子。
Second, whenever I hear this argument, it usually seems to conflate the internet with social media.
其次，每当我听到这个论点时，它通常似乎将互联网与社交媒体混为一谈。
During COVID, a lot of people said, “Oh, thank God for social media.
在新冠疫情期间，很多人说：“哦，感谢上帝有社交媒体。
What would the kids do if they didn’t have social media?” To which I say, “Yes, can you imagine if the only way they could connect was by calling them up on the phone or texting them, or Skype or Zoom or FaceTime, or multiplayer video games or many, many other ways that the internet allows you to connect.”
如果孩子们没有社交媒体，他们会做什么？”我说，“是的，你能想象如果他们唯一的联系方式是打电话或发短信、Skype、Zoom、FaceTime、多人视频游戏或许多其他互联网允许的联系方式吗？”
Social media is very different from everything else.
社交媒体与其他一切都非常不同。
Social media is a distorting mirror.
社交媒体是一面扭曲的镜子。
It’s not a connection device.
它不是连接设备。
Well, it is that, but it’s a weird connection device.
嗯，就是这样，但这是一个奇怪的连接设备。
That would be my first response: Don’t confuse social media and the internet.
这是我的第一反应：不要混淆社交媒体和互联网。
We need the internet.
我们需要互联网。
The internet is amazing.
互联网太棒了。
Remember what it was like in the ’90s when we all discovered it?
还记得 90 年代我们都发现它时的情况吗？
It was one of the greatest things we’ve ever seen.
这是我们见过的最伟大的事情之一。
It didn’t harm mental health.
它没有损害心理健康。
It was good for democracy.
这对民主有好处。
That’s not true anymore in our modern .
在我们的现代，情况已不再如此。
.
。
.
。
These purported benefits of social media — I’m just not seeing the evidence for it.
这些所谓的社交媒体好处 —— 我只是没有看到证据。
There are hardly any studies —
几乎没有任何研究 -
Which is Twitter?
推特是哪个？
Is Twitter internet or social media?
Twitter 是互联网还是社交媒体？
Social media.
社交媒体。
That’s how they all meet, these kids.
这些孩子们就是这样相遇的。
That’s how they get in touch with each other.
这就是他们相互联系的方式。
They see what they’re working on.
他们看到自己正在做什么。
It seems to me just an enormous benefit.
在我看来，这是一个巨大的好处。
It could be the case, maybe only 5 percent of teenagers benefit from this Twitter function, but that could, by far, outweigh the costs, right?
情况可能是这样，也许只有 5% 的青少年从 Twitter 的这项功能中受益，但到目前为止，这可能超过成本，对吧？
Hold on a second.
等一下。
Let’s suppose it’s 5 percent benefit, if you’ll grant me that probably the costs outweigh the benefits for middle school students because that’s where the girls seem to really go off track.
假设这是 5% 的收益，如果你同意我的话，对于中学生来说，成本可能超过收益，因为女孩们似乎真正偏离了轨道。
Will you grant me that, that the cost-benefit ratio is probably negative when you’re 11 and 12 for being on Instagram and TikTok?
你是否同意，当你 11 岁和 12 岁的时候，使用 Instagram 和 TikTok 的成本效益比可能是负数？
I think it is likely that girls aged 12 to 14 are worse off because of Instagram.
我认为 12 至 14 岁的女孩可能会因为 Instagram 而变得更糟。
I would agree with that.
我同意这一点。
Okay, fine.
好吧，好吧。
Good.
好的。
If we agree on that, now, at least, let’s focus where it’s harder for me, which is, what do we do about 15- and 16-year-olds?
如果我们在这一点上达成一致，那么至少现在让我们关注对我来说更困难的地方，即我们该如何对待 15 岁和 16 岁的孩子？
We all agree 18-year-olds can be on, but let’s take 14, 15 because I favor raising the age to 16.
我们都同意 18 岁的人可以参加，但我们以 14、15 岁为例，因为我赞成将年龄提高到 16 岁。
I think social media is not appropriate for children.
我认为社交媒体不适合儿童。
The internet, of course, has so many amazing things.
当然，互联网有很多令人惊奇的事情。
I’m not saying keep them away from the internet.
我并不是说让他们远离互联网。
I’m saying social media, having an account where you’re fed material, you’re fed content by algorithms — that is not appropriate for children.
我说的是社交媒体，拥有一个可以向你提供材料的帐户，通过算法向你提供内容 ——这不适合儿童。
The age should be 16.
年龄应该是16岁。
Let’s, you and I, talk about 14- and 15-year-olds.
让我们，你和我，来谈谈 14 岁和 15 岁的孩子。
These kids start connecting with each other when they’re 13.
这些孩子在 13 岁时就开始相互联系。
Maybe I only meet them when they’re 17, 18, but they get going on science and learning definitely at age 13.
也许我只在他们 17、18 岁时才见到他们，但他们肯定在 13 岁时就开始从事科学和学习。
Boy, can you imagine if they didn’t have Twitter?
孩子，你能想象如果他们没有 Twitter 会怎样吗？
There’s no way they could find each other, is there?
他们不可能找到彼此，不是吗？
It would be much harder.
那就难多了。
I find a lot of people —
我发现很多人 —
It would be a little harder.
会有点困难。
No, no. It’d be a little harder.
不，不。会有点难。
Come on.
快点。
There’d be something like social media.
会有像社交媒体之类的东西。
It may not be Twitter.
它可能不是推特。
There are so many websites.
有很多网站。
There are blogs.
有博客。
There are podcasts.
有播客。
They would find each other.
他们会找到彼此的。
You don’t have to have an algorithmically driven platform to find other kids who share your interest, so I disagree with that premise.
你不必有一个算法驱动的平台来找到与你有共同兴趣的其他孩子，所以我不同意这个前提。
I can switch my Twitter to no algorithm with one click, and they do, too.
我可以一键将我的 Twitter 切换为无算法，他们也这样做。
Well, okay.
好吧，好吧。
That’s fair enough.
这很公平。
They choose.
他们选择。
They all make this decision.
他们都做出了这个决定。
Wait, wait, Tyler, wait.
等等，等等，泰勒，等等。
You know what?
你知道吗？
I want to turn the tables here, and I want to ask you some things because there’s something that I am really puzzled by, and I want to know your opinion of it.
我想扭转局面，我想问你一些事情，因为有件事我真的很困惑，我想知道你对此的看法。
It seems to me, in talking to my students, members of Gen-Z have to spend so much time servicing their network connections — many hours a day.
在我看来，在与我的学生交谈时，Z 世代的成员必须花费大量时间维护他们的网络连接 ——每天很多小时。
It’s the first thing they do when they open their eyes in the morning.
这是他们早上睁开眼睛时做的第一件事。
It’s the last thing they do before they close them at night, is check their notifications, messages.
这是他们晚上关门前做的最后一件事，就是检查通知、消息。
And in between, it’s a lot of what they do.
在这两者之间，他们做了很多事情。
They don’t have much attention left over to do anything.
他们没有太多的注意力去做任何事情。
Now, there was a conversation between Patrick Collison and Sam Altman last May, I think it was.
去年五月，帕特里克·科里森和萨姆·奥尔特曼之间进行了一次对话，我认为是这样。
Patrick pointed out to Sam, he said, “This is the first time since the ’70s that there has not been a major person in software under 30.
Patrick 向 Sam 指出，“这是自 70 年代以来第一次没有 30 岁以下的软件界大人物。
It was Steve Jobs and Bill Gates.
这是史蒂夫·乔布斯和比尔·盖茨。
They got started when they were very young, in their teens and twenties.
他们在很小的时候就开始了，十几岁和二十几岁。
They founded companies in their twenties.
他们在二十多岁时创办了公司。
The millennials — the ’90s and 2000s — the millennials were amazing.
千禧一代——90 年代和 2000 年代——千禧一代非常棒。
But Gen Z isn’t starting companies.
但 Z 世代并没有创办公司。
Gen Z isn’t doing things.”
Z 世代没有做事。”
My question for you is, you said that this is the most productive, inventive, creative generation.
我想问你的问题是，你说过这是最具生产力、创造力和创造力的一代。
It seems to me you could make the case that it seems to be possibly the least.
在我看来，你可以证明这可能是最少的。
What I’d like to know from you is, can you name members of Gen Z who really have come out big and really had a big impact on the world?
我想从您那里了解到的是，您能说出 Z 世代中哪些人真正脱颖而出并对世界产生了巨大影响吗？
Can you name anyone?
你能说出谁的名字吗？
There are only two names that come up.
只有两个名字出现。
What are yours?
你的是什么？
Let me first say that in any area where we can truly measure performance, like take chess — young people, including young women, they’re just doing better and better than ever before.
首先我要说的是，在任何我们可以真正衡量表现的领域，比如国际象棋，年轻人，包括年轻女性，他们都比以前做得越来越好。
Oh, yes.
哦，是的。
The Flynn Effect has actually stopped.
弗林效应实际上已经停止了。
Social networks — they’re not ruining the young women chess players.
社交网络 ——它们并没有毁掉年轻女棋手。
They’re just improving all the time.
他们一直在进步。
That’s telling you something about the smart people in society.
这告诉你一些关于社会上聪明人的事情。
I think that you can’t just be a programmer alone, that the nature of companies now is not that you do it in your dorm room at Harvard, but it requires synthetic abilities.
我觉得你不能只是一个程序员，现在公司的本质不是你在哈佛宿舍里做，而是需要综合能力。
Sam Altman at OpenAI in his late 30s is the new paradigm, but it’s because of the nature of production that’s changed.
30 多岁的 OpenAI 的 Sam Altman 是新的范例，但这是因为生产的性质发生了变化。
Fair enough.
很公平。
Even still, can you tell me .
即使如此，你能告诉我吗？
.
。
.
。
My concern is Gen Z — they’re working hard, but so much of their effort is within the black hole of the prestige economy within social media.
我担心的是 Z 世代——他们正在努力工作，但他们的大部分努力都在社交媒体声望经济的黑洞中。
We can point to MrBeast as a well-known Gen Z person, but that proves the rule that it’s all about doing things to be recognized within this prestige economy, to get likes and followers.
我们可以指出 MrBeast 是一位著名的 Z 世代人物，但这证明了一条规则：做事就是为了在这个声望经济中得到认可，获得喜欢和追随者。
That’s to get prestige, and nothing comes out of that world to influence the world that the rest of us live in.
那是为了获得声望，而这个世界中没有任何东西可以影响我们其他人所生活的世界。
Please tell me I’m wrong.
请告诉我我错了。
I visited Anthropic and OpenAI.
我参观了 Anthropic 和 OpenAI。
A lot of the people there were extremely young; I don’t know exact birth dates.
那里的很多人都非常年轻；我不知道确切的出生日期。
They’re doing amazing things.
他们正在做令人惊奇的事情。
None of them are famous, but their research teams are quite small.
他们都不出名，但他们的研究团队却很小。
Those individuals are decisive.
这些人是决定性的。
Again, with Emergent Ventures, I’m interviewing young people from ages 16, often through 25, through 30, five to eight times a week, every week of my life.
同样，在 Emergent Ventures 中，我每周都会采访 16 岁、通常到 25 岁、到 30 岁的年轻人，每周五到八次，这是我生命中的每一周。
They’re just awesome.
他们太棒了。
They’re way better than kids were in my time.
他们比我那个时代的孩子要好得多。
They’re smarter, they’re more productive, they’re more attentive, they’re more disciplined.
他们更聪明，他们更有效率，他们更专心，他们更有纪律。
I see there are problems at the median, but they’re just better in every way, and I don’t see how that fits into your account.
我发现中间存在问题，但它们在各方面都更好，而且我不知道这是否适合您的帐户。
First of all, I will grant that the internet, in general, makes it much easier for you to find the very top people.
首先，我承认，总的来说，互联网让你更容易找到最顶尖的人。
Let’s suppose that I was right, that because Gen Z now has to devote 5 to 10 hours a day, literally 5 to 10 hours a day, to servicing their network connections plus consuming content.
假设我是对的，因为 Z 世代现在每天必须投入 5 到 10 个小时，实际上是每天 5 到 10 个小时，来维护他们的网络连接并消费内容。
They have to keep up with Netflix.
他们必须跟上 Netflix 的步伐。
They do YouTube Shorts.
他们制作 YouTube Shorts。
If we take 5 to 10 hours a day out of most of their lives, most of them will not be very productive.
如果我们每天花掉他们大部分时间 5 到 10 个小时，他们中的大多数人的生产力都不会很高。
But there always are going to be geniuses.
但总会有天才。
There always are going to be amazing young people, and you’re able to find them.
总会有令人惊叹的年轻人，你可以找到他们。
Your anecdotal experience that you’re finding all these amazing young people doesn’t convince me that the average is getting better.
你发现所有这些出色的年轻人的轶事经历并不能让我相信平均水平正在变得更好。
On the ease of adjusting to smartphones and social media
关于适应智能手机和社交媒体的难易程度
Whatever problems there are, why not just think we’ll adjust to them?
无论存在什么问题，为什么不认为我们会适应它们呢？
Now, I’ve read your page 81 where you discussed this, but I don’t think you have any actual facts.
现在，我已经阅读了您在第 81 页讨论的内容，但我认为您没有任何实际事实。
You just say you don’t think people can adjust, but we adjusted to moving from a hunter-gatherer society to agriculture.
你只是说你认为人们无法适应，但我们适应了从狩猎采集社会转向农业社会。
We adjusted to having fire.
我们适应了生火。
We adjusted to urbanization.
我们适应了城市化。
We adjusted to many truly major trends that overall have been great, but in the early stages were far from easy.
我们适应了许多真正的主要趋势，这些趋势总体来说很棒，但在早期阶段却绝非易事。
You have this weird distinction between internet and social media, which I don’t really buy —
互联网和社交媒体之间存在着这种奇怪的区别，我并不真正相信这一点 ——
What?
什么？
— but what’s happening now?
—— 但是现在发生了什么？
Just another example of that.
这只是另一个例子。
There are some problems.
有一些问题。
We’re going to adjust.
我们要调整。
Medium-term benefits will be enormous.
中期效益将是巨大的。
Let’s get on with the adjustment.
让我们继续进行调整。
You could be right about that.
你可能是对的。
That is definitely within the realm of possibility.
这绝对是有可能的。
It could just be, this is the early days, and I am overreacting.
可能只是，现在还处于早期阶段，我反应过度了。
You could be right, but let’s think of another class of events.
你可能是对的，但让我们考虑另一类事件。
Suppose we change our diet so that there’s just no vitamin C in it, and our kids start getting scurvy.
假设我们改变饮食习惯，不再含有维生素 C，我们的孩子就会开始患坏血病。
Would you say, “Well, they’ll adapt to that.
你会说：“好吧，他们会适应的。
They’ll adapt to scurvy.
他们会适应坏血病。
We’ll figure out how to live with scurvy.” Is that going to be something we’ll adapt to?
我们会弄清楚如何与坏血病共存。”我们会适应这种情况吗？
That’s what the Aztecs did.
阿兹特克人就是这么做的。
They put nixtamal in their tortillas, and they don’t get scurvy for that reason.
他们在玉米饼中加入尼克斯塔马尔，因此他们不会患坏血病。
They didn’t eat oranges.
他们不吃橙子。
They did adapt to it.
他们确实适应了。
Ah, I see.
啊，我明白了。
What I’m trying to argue here is that humans, as mammals, have certain requirements in childhood, and those are for a lot of play, face-to-face interaction, eye contact, synchrony, a lot of those things.
我在这里想说的是，人类作为哺乳动物，在童年有一定的要求，这些要求是大量的游戏、面对面的互动、眼神交流、同步性等等。
My argument is that the virtual life, the phone-based life is blocking that, so it’s not like they’re going to be able to grow up without that stuff.
我的观点是，虚拟生活、基于手机的生活阻碍了这一点，所以如果没有这些东西，他们就无法成长。
I think your argument is that AI will play the role of whatever the Aztecs did.
我认为你的论点是人工智能将扮演阿兹特克人所做的一切。
AI will allow kids to basically just sit in a room for 18 years and still get face-to-face contact virtually, synchrony, humor, social skills.
人工智能将使孩子们基本上只是坐在一个房间里 18 年，仍然可以进行虚拟面对面的接触、同步、幽默和社交技能。
They could, in theory, sit in their room alone for 18 years and just be fed food and social experiences.
理论上，他们可以独自坐在自己的房间里 18 年，只获得食物和社交经历。
Do you think we could do that?
你认为我们能做到吗？
That’s one scenario, but the more optimistic scenario is, you talk about this 5- to 10-hour flow of messages you need to manage.
这是一种场景，但更乐观的场景是，您谈论需要管理的 5 到 10 小时的消息流。
AI will do that for you, and you’ll have a lot more time again, and you’ll spend it meeting up with your friends.
人工智能会为你做到这一点，你将再次拥有更多的时间，并且你将用它来与你的朋友见面。
Like it is fun, right?
好像很有趣，对吧？
The fact that it’s fun means it’s not just a public good.
它很有趣，这一事实意味着它不仅仅是一种公共物品。
Kids will find ways of doing this.
孩子们会找到方法做到这一点。
Oh, meeting up.
哦，见面了。
Kids have a great time when they’re together, but being on social media is not necessarily very fun.
孩子们在一起玩得很开心，但在社交媒体上不一定很有趣。
It’s work.
这是工作。
It takes a huge amount of time, especially for the girls.
这需要花费大量的时间，尤其是对于女孩来说。
They’re very anxious about it.
他们对此非常着急。
AI would do that work for us if we want it to.
如果我们愿意的话，人工智能会为我们完成这项工作。
Fine, okay.
好吧，好吧。
If you’re suggesting that we could outsource all of that bad stuff to AI so that kids don’t actually have to know what’s going on in their friend’s life — they don’t have to keep up with who said what to whom because they’re never going to actually meet their friend in person — then I would say, maybe that could work because we’re all just alone in a room.
如果你建议我们可以将所有这些不好的事情外包给人工智能，这样孩子们实际上就不必知道他们朋友的生活中发生了什么 ——他们不必跟上谁对谁说了些什么，因为他们永远不会真正亲自见到他们的朋友 ——那么我会说，也许这可行，因为我们都独自一人在一个房间里。
But if you’re saying that they will actually meet up in person, and then they each don’t know what’s going on in each other’s lives because their AI took care of it?
但如果你说他们实际上会亲自见面，然后他们每个人都不知道彼此的生活发生了什么，因为他们的人工智能已经处理好了？
What are you saying?
你在说什么？
No, they read a digest or they hear a digest.
不，他们阅读摘要或听到摘要。
Manage the flow.
管理流量。
We’re a year away from this working.
我们距离这项工作还有一年的时间。
Google Gemini is working on it already.
谷歌 Gemini 已经在研究这个问题了。
It’s almost there.
快到了。
Again, in theory, you could be right, and looking at the long history of humanity, and I know your .
再说一次，从理论上讲，你可能是对的，看看人类悠久的历史，我知道你的。
.
。
.
。
I’m very sympathetic to Matt Ridley’s book, Rational Optimist, Steve Pinker’s points about The Better Angels of Our Nature, and Robert Wright’s book, Nonzero.
我非常赞同马特·里德利（Matt Ridley）的书《理性乐观主义者》（Rational Optimist）、史蒂夫·平克（Steve Pinker）关于我们本性中更好的天使的观点，以及罗伯特·赖特（Robert Wright）的书《非零》（Nonzero）。
You may be right.
你可能是对的。
I think I’m right that we’re going into a dip.
我认为我们正在陷入衰退，我是对的。
It’s gigantic in terms of mental health impact, suicide rates, self-harm, hospitalizations, missed potential.
它对心理健康、自杀率、自残、住院、错失潜力等方面的影响是巨大的。
But you might be right that this is early days, and in 30 to 50 years, the next generation or two generations from now could be so optimized that they’re like superhuman.
但你可能是对的，现在还处于早期阶段，在 30 到 50 年内，下一代或两代人可能会被优化到像超人一样。
Do we agree on that?
我们同意吗？
I don’t know what superhuman means, but I think these things are going to go well.
我不知道超人是什么意思，但我认为这些事情都会顺利进行。
Let’s put it that way.
这么说吧。
Okay.
好的。
You think they’re going to go well because that’s been the trajectory over the last couple of centuries?
你认为他们会进展顺利，因为这是过去几个世纪的发展轨迹？
People can adjust to an amazing variety of circumstances, and they take tools and figure out how to use them for better rather than worse.
人们可以适应各种各样的环境，他们会使用工具并找出如何使用它们来更好而不是更糟。
More and more kids will secede from the bad parts of social media.
越来越多的孩子将远离社交媒体的不良部分。
They’ll just say, “I’m going to form like a little polycule but without sex, and my polycule will be based around not doing so much social media.” Like my friends and I in high school — we didn’t go to parties.
他们只会说，“我会变得像一个小聚合体，但没有性，而我的聚合体将基于不做太多社交媒体。”就像我和高中时的朋友一样——我们不去参加聚会。
We seceded from that.
我们脱离了这一点。
We were out of many loops, but we had a blast, and I think —
我们摆脱了很多循环，但我们玩得很开心，我认为 -
Right, because you were together.
对啊，因为你们在一起了。
Yes.
是的。
People can still do that.
人们仍然可以做到这一点。
I agree there’s too much homework, by the way.
顺便说一句，我同意作业太多了。
No, that’s right.
不，没错。
Especially in the early grades, there’s no reason for it in first, second, third, fourth grade.
尤其是低年级，一年级、二年级、三年级、四年级更没有理由。
I think we are reaching some agreement here, which is that the technology is currently hooking kids into a collective action problem.
我认为我们在这里达成了一些共识，即技术目前正在让孩子们陷入集体行动问题。
Most of them say they’re only on it, or on it this much, because they have to be.
他们中的大多数人说，他们只是在做这件事，或者说做了这么多，因为他们必须这么做。
They don’t want to be.
他们不想成为这样的人。
They wish things could be different, so they’re kind of trapped now.
他们希望事情能有所不同，所以他们现在有点陷入困境。
I think we agree that if we could liberate the kids from that so that they could really spend a lot more time hanging out together unsupervised, they would be better off.
我想我们都同意，如果我们能够把孩子们从这种状态中解放出来，让他们能够真正花更多的时间在无人监管的情况下一起出去玩，他们的生活会更好。
They would be happier, and then they could have many of the benefits of the technologies.
他们会更快乐，然后他们就可以享受到技术的许多好处。
I agree with you on that.
我同意你的观点。
That’s actually what I’m trying to do in my book.
这实际上就是我在书中试图做的事情。
In the book, after I go through the analysis of collective action problems, I say, “Here are four norms that will solve for the biggest collective action problems.” And if we can do this, then we would liberate kids to do just what you were saying.
在书中，在分析了集体行动问题后，我说：“这里有四个规范可以解决最大的集体行动问题。”如果我们能做到这一点，那么我们就能解放孩子们，让他们按照你所说的去做。
The four norms are no smartphone before high school.
这四个标准是高中之前没有智能手机。
Kids can have flip phones to communicate.
孩子们可以使用翻盖手机进行交流。
Flip phones were not harmful.
翻盖手机没有害处。
You can use them to communicate, to say, “I’ll see you at 4:00.
您可以使用它们进行交流，例如说：“4:00 见。
Let’s meet at the mall.” But you’re not going to type out long things about what someone said and how you feel.
我们在商场见面吧。”但你不会写出关于某人所说的话和你的感受的长篇大论。
You’re going to wait till you see each other in person.
你们要等到亲自见面。
No smartphones before high school, and the kids can still have laptops.
高中之前没有智能手机，孩子们仍然可以拥有笔记本电脑。
They can have other things, but it’s the constant connection in your pocket.
他们可以有其他东西，但这是你口袋里的持续连接。
That’s what has really done them in.
这才是真正对他们造成的影响。
That’s what brought about the phone-based childhood.
这就是带来了以手机为基础的童年的原因。
So that’s number one.
所以这是第一。
Second norm, no social media till 16.
第二个规范，16 岁之前不能使用社交媒体。
You have most of the rest of the internet.
您拥有互联网的大部分其余内容。
You can connect in all kinds of ways, but to open an account .
您可以通过各种方式进行联系，但不能开设帐户。
.
。
.
。
I’m not saying they can’t see a YouTube video, of course, or a TikTok video.
当然，我并不是说他们看不到 YouTube 视频或 TikTok 视频。
I’m saying they cannot sign a contract with a company to give away their data, to be exposed, to have an account, to have a name, to get sucked into the whole performance game.
我是说，他们不能与一家公司签订合同来泄露他们的数据、暴露自己、拥有账户、拥有名字、陷入整个性能游戏。
Let’s just delay that till 16.
我们就推迟到16点吧。
The evidence shows — and actually, this is from an Orben and Przybylski study a couple of years ago — that the maximum damage is done to girls around 11 to 13 and boys around 14 to 15, so let’s just delay it till 16.
证据显示 ——事实上，这是来自 Orben 和 Przybylski 几年前的一项研究 —— 最大的伤害发生在 11 至 13 岁左右的女孩和 14 至 15 岁左右的男孩，所以让我们推迟到 16 岁吧。
That’s the second.
这是第二个。
Third is phone-free schools.
第三是无电话学校。
No one’s ever pointed out a benefit to letting kids have their phones with them during class.
没有人指出让孩子们在课堂上随身携带手机有什么好处。
Now, in high school, maybe they use them for some lesson plans.
现在，在高中，他们可能会用它们来制定一些课程计划。
I’m not saying there’s zero benefits, but the distraction effect is so gigantic that as long as you can text, you will text.
我并不是说好处为零，但分散注意力的效果是如此巨大，只要你能发短信，你就会发短信。
So just put the phone in a phone locker or in a Yondr pouch when you arrive, and you get them when you go home.
因此，您只需在抵达时将手机放入手机储物柜或 Yondr 袋中，回家后即可拿到。
That’s the third one, phone-free schools.
这是第三个，无电话学校。
That would give them seven hours a day where they could talk to each other and to their teachers.
这将使他们每天有七个小时可以互相交谈以及与老师交谈。
Then the fourth one is far more childhood independence and free play.
第四个是童年时期更加独立和自由玩耍。
This is all the Lenore Skenazy work, Free-Range Kids.
这就是 Lenore Skenazy 的全部作品《Free-Range Kids》。
She and I and Peter Gray founded an organization called Let Grow.
她和我以及彼得·格雷创立了一个名为“Let Grow”的组织。
If there are any parents listening, if you have kids under 12, please go to letgrow.org.
如果有家长在听，如果您有 12 岁以下的孩子，请访问 letgrow.org。
We have all kinds of ideas and advice and ways that you can give your kid a healthier, more play-based childhood, which fosters development, happiness, competence.
我们有各种各样的想法、建议和方法，可以让您的孩子拥有一个更健康、更多以游戏为基础的童年，从而促进发展、幸福和能力。
Those four norms — if we could do it, then I think we would roll back a lot of the mental illness.
这四个规范 ——如果我们能做到，那么我想我们就能减少很多精神疾病。
We’d free kids up for a lot more time to play with each other and hang out together, and then I’d be much less worried.
我们会让孩子们有更多的时间互相玩耍、一起出去玩，然后我就不会那么担心了。
Now, for instance —
现在，举例来说 ——
Do you agree with me on those norms?
您同意我对这些规范的看法吗？
It depends what you mean by them.
这取决于你对它们的意思。
“No social media before 16.” Is that enforced by the government or by parents?
“16 岁之前禁止使用社交媒体。”这是政府强制的还是家长强制的？
First of all, the parents can’t really enforce this stuff.
首先，父母不能真正强制执行这些东西。
It’s like saying, “You can’t drink alcohol before 21, but it’s up to the parents to enforce that.
这就像说：“21 岁之前不能喝酒，但要由父母来强制执行。
Bars never have to check ID.
酒吧从来不需要检查身份证。
The parents should stop their kids from going into bars.” Well, how do you do that unless you lock them up at home?
家长应该阻止孩子去酒吧。”那么，除非你把它们锁在家里，否则你怎么做呢？
So, it’s unrealistic to think that parents could actually do this.
因此，认为父母实际上可以做到这一点是不现实的。
You’ve got families with two married parents with graduate degrees who are really concerned about this.
有些家庭有两个拥有研究生学位的已婚父母，他们真的很担心这个问题。
They can’t stop their kids from getting on these platforms because there are always ways around it.
他们无法阻止自己的孩子使用这些平台，因为总有办法绕过它。
The platforms have to do something.
平台必须做点什么。
They have to do something to help us.
他们必须做点什么来帮助我们。
They do nothing, nothing.
他们什么也不做，什么也不做。
They know when a kid is 11.
他们知道孩子什么时候11岁。
The minimum age is currently 13; they don’t enforce it.
目前最低年龄为 13 岁；他们不强制执行。
They know when a kid is 11; they won’t do anything to kick these kids off.
他们知道孩子什么时候11岁；他们不会做任何事情来赶走这些孩子。
That has to change.
这必须改变。
On age-gating social media
在有年龄限制的社交媒体上
I’m a parent; say I have a 15-year-old, and I want the kid on Twitter.
我是一名家长；假设我有一个 15 岁的孩子，我希望这个孩子出现在 Twitter 上。
Is the government going to stop me?
政府会阻止我吗？
There are a couple of options here.
这里有几个选项。
What I would prefer —
我想要什么 —
No, tell me your number-one option.
不，告诉我你的第一选择。
What’s your view?
你的看法是什么？
You’re talking around it a bit.
你在谈论它。
Okay.
好的。
My number-one option is that the age be raised from 13 to 16 and enforced.
我的第一选择是将年龄从 13 岁提高到 16 岁并强制执行。
So, the government will stop me from raising my 15-year-old the way I want to.
因此，政府将阻止我按照自己想要的方式抚养我 15 岁的孩子。
I’m totally against that.
我完全反对这一点。
Well, hold on a second.
好吧，请稍等。
The current way it’s written — this goes back, this is COPPA, the Child Online Privacy Protection Act.
目前的书写方式 —— 这可以追溯到，这就是 COPPA，即《儿童在线隐私保护法》。
It was done in 1998, I think it was, or 1997.
它是在 1998 年完成的，我想是，或者 1997 年。
It says that these big — like AOL or Time Warner or whatever — it went in the early internet.
它说这些大公司——比如美国在线或时代华纳或者其他什么——它进入了早期的互联网。
At what age are you allowed to take data from a child without that child’s parent’s permission or knowledge or assent?
在什么年龄，您可以在未经孩子父母许可、不知情或同意的情况下获取孩子的数据？
At what age?
什么年龄？
Thirteen.
十三。
Well, you’d think it should be 18 because you’re signing a contract.
嗯，你可能会认为应该是 18，因为你要签合同。
The terms of service is a contract.
服务条款是一份合同。
You’d think it’d be 18, but they said, “Well, that’s not realistic.
你可能会认为是 18 岁，但他们说：“嗯，这不现实。
Let’s make it lower.” Ed Markey was in the House then.
我们把它降低一点吧。”埃德·马基当时在众议院。
He said 16, he thought was the best age, but lobbyists got it pushed down to 13.
他说 16 岁是他认为最好的年龄，但游说者把这个年龄推到了 13 岁。
He said he knew it was the wrong age at the time, but it was the best he could do, so it’s 13.
他说他知道当时的年龄不对，但这是他能做到的最好年龄，所以是13岁。
That’s the age at which you’re allowed to sign a contract without your parent’s knowledge.
这是您可以在父母不知情的情况下签署合同的年龄。
Now, if we just push that up to 16, then the law would be, with your parent’s permission, you can do it.
现在，如果我们把这个数字提高到 16，那么法律规定，在你父母的许可下，你可以这样做。
In some versions of this legislation, you would say the age is 16 without parents’ permission, but if you have your parent’s permission, then it could be as low as 14 or 13.
在该立法的某些版本中，未经父母许可，您可能会说年龄为 16 岁，但如果您获得父母的许可，则年龄可能低至 14 岁或 13 岁。
What’s wrong with that?
这有什么问题吗？
Are you saying, if parents can give permission, you still would object?
你是说，如果父母能够允许，你还会反对吗？
No, I’m fine with it being up to the parents.
不，我觉得这取决于父母。
But your view is also, it should be up to the parents, and the government doesn’t step into this?
但你的观点也是，这应该由家长决定，政府不介入吗？
There are parental controls on Instagram, as you know much better than I do, and not that many parents do it, right?
Instagram 上有家长控制功能，您比我更了解，但这样做的家长并不多，对吧？
So, if it’s parents, it’s okay.
所以，如果是父母的话，那是没问题的。
I don’t see why your stuff is such a big change, at least on that issue.
我不明白为什么你的东西有这么大的变化，至少在这个问题上是这样。
Look, Tyler, very few people are able to use parental controls well.
听着，泰勒，很少有人能够很好地使用家长控制。
Again, people who are very well educated who are trying — they’re complicated; there are ways around it.
再说一次，那些受过良好教育、正在努力的人——他们很复杂；他们很复杂；他们很复杂。有办法解决这个问题。
I agree.
我同意。
Tyler, let’s take pornography.
泰勒，我们来看看色情片吧。
Do you think it’s okay for 11-year-olds to be on Pornhub?
你认为 11 岁的孩子可以上 Pornhub 吗？
There’s no risk.
没有风险。
They don’t even have to say they’re 18.
他们甚至不必说自己18岁了。
They just go on.
他们只是继续。
Do you think that’s okay?
你觉得这样可以吗？
Look, you’re shifting something back to me.
听着，你正在把一些东西还给我。
There’s a dual issue that either it’s up to the parents, in which case your recommendation won’t matter much, or the government steps in, which you won’t say you’re for, but at least in your ExcelinEd talk, you at least raised the possibility.
这里有一个双重问题，要么由家长决定，在这种情况下你的推荐并不重要，要么政府介入，你不会说你支持，但至少在你的 ExcelinEd 演讲中，你至少提出了这种可能性。
I’m asking you, are you for the government stopping me from having my 15-year-old on Twitter?
我问你，你支持政府阻止我在 Twitter 上发布我 15 岁的孩子吗？
Yes or no?
是还是不是？
No.
不。
So, it’s up to the parents.
所以说，还是父母的事吧。
No.
不。
Then it’s up to .
然后就到了。
.
。
.
。
I’m in favor of helping parents to raise their kids the way they want.
我赞成帮助父母按照他们想要的方式抚养孩子。
Right now, the number one concern of parents all across America is not their kid getting pregnant or abducted or in a car accident.
目前，全美父母最关心的不是他们的孩子怀孕、被绑架或遭遇车祸。
It’s social media and the internet.
这是社交媒体和互联网。
That’s what parents are mostly afraid of.
这才是父母最害怕的。
It’s the number one concern by far, even for parents of six- and seven-year-olds.
到目前为止，这是最关心的问题，即使对于六岁和七岁孩子的父母来说也是如此。
Okay?
好吧？
Something’s going terribly wrong here.
这里出了严重的问题。
The government set up the internet such that there are zero guardrails by age.
政府建立了互联网，使年龄的护栏为零。
Nothing.
什么也没有。
If you’re nine, you just say .
如果你九岁，你就说。
.
。
.
。
The government set it up that way.
政府就是这么设定的。
They gave blanket immunity to these industries.
他们对这些行业给予了全面豁免。
They said, “And not only are there no age guards, but you have complete protection from lawsuits.
他们说：“不仅没有年龄保护，而且你还可以得到全面的保护，免受诉讼。
No one can sue you.”
没有人可以起诉你。”
What we have is a complete goddamn — I want to curse here — disaster.
我们所面临的就是一场彻头彻尾的该死的 —— 我想在这里咒骂 —— 灾难。
It was set up by the government to run this way.
它是政府设立的，就是为了以这种方式运行。
It’s not like any other industry, and it is destroying a generation.
它与任何其他行业不同，它正在摧毁一代人。
The mental health catastrophe is bigger than anything we’ve ever seen, and what I’m saying is not the government should decide.
心理健康灾难比我们所见过的任何灾难都要严重，我所说的并不是政府应该决定的。
What I’m saying is, we parents are stuck in these horrible collective action problems.
我想说的是，我们父母陷入了这些可怕的集体行动问题之中。
We cannot get out.
我们无法出去。
We cannot get out.
我们无法出去。
But you haven’t told us how to get out.
但你还没有告诉我们如何出去。
Yes, I have.
是的，我有。
Now you’re raising the possibility — so parents can sue, say, Meta/Facebook if the kid gets on and the parent didn’t actually approve it.
现在你提出了一种可能性——如果孩子上学而家长实际上并不批准，家长可以起诉 Meta/Facebook。
Given how many customers there are, isn’t that just destroying the company?
考虑到有多少客户，这不是在毁掉公司吗？
No, no, no. Hold on.
不，不，不。坚持住。
This is slightly off topic, but it’s very relevant here.
这有点偏离主题，但在这里非常相关。
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act gave them protection from liability for what other people post.
《通信规范法》第 230 条保护他们免于对其他人发布的内容承担责任。
That makes sense, but it’s been interpreted so broadly by some lower courts that if parents want to sue Meta or TikTok because it addicted their kids, because they built design features like the constant refresh, the eternal feed.
这是有道理的，但一些下级法院对此的解释非常广泛，如果父母想要起诉 Meta 或 TikTok，因为它让他们的孩子上瘾，因为他们构建了不断刷新、永恒提要等设计功能。
They designed it to be as addictive as possible, but they can’t be sued for their design choice.
他们将其设计得尽可能让人上瘾，但他们不能因其设计选择而被起诉。
That’s insane.
这太疯狂了。
The government has taken a hands-off approach so far, and it’s been a complete disaster.
到目前为止，政府采取了不干涉的态度，这完全是一场灾难。
What I’m saying is, we need to have these companies held liable for their decisions.
我的意思是，我们需要让这些公司对其决定承担责任。
Not for some jerk posting some false thing — I understand that principle.
不是为了某个混蛋发布一些虚假信息 —— 我明白这个原则。
The government has to return liability to the industries.
政府必须将责任归还给行业。
We saw that in those hearings a couple of weeks ago on Section 230.
我们在几周前关于第 230 条的听证会上看到了这一点。
So that’s the first thing.
这是第一件事。
The second is, the government has to tell the platforms that they have some responsibility, some, for age-gating.
第二是，政府必须告诉平台，他们对年龄限制负有一定的责任。
Right now, they have none.
现在，他们没有。
Nothing, and that is completely untenable.
没有什么，这是完全站不住脚的。
What I would like to see is, take the law that you passed — 13 with no enforcement — make it 16 with enforcement, and then we can talk about whether we want to have a parental permission feature.
我希望看到的是，把你们通过的法律 — 13条不强制执行 — 改为16条强制执行，然后我们就可以讨论是否要拥有家长许可功能。
That would be okay with me, where you have to be 16 to sign a contract and give away your data, but if your parents want you to have an account on TikTok at 13 and give away your data to the Chinese government, they can choose to do that, and let’s see if TikTok and Meta can figure out a way to do parental permission.
这对我来说没问题，你必须年满 16 岁才能签署合同并泄露你的数据，但如果你的父母希望你在 13 岁时在 TikTok 上拥有一个帐户并将你的数据泄露给中国政府，他们可以选择这样做，让我们看看 TikTok 和 Meta 是否可以找到一种获得家长许可的方法。
I’m betting they can.
我打赌他们可以。
Well, Facebook has billions of users, or you could call them customers.
嗯，Facebook 拥有数十亿用户，或者你可以称他们为客户。
Let’s say they have —
假设他们有 ——
No, they’re users, they’re not customers.
不，他们是用户，不是客户。
They don’t give them money.
他们不给他们钱。
Well, they’re both.
嗯，他们都是。
No, but how are they customers?
不，但是他们的客户怎么样？
They’re customers.
他们是顾客。
You want to please your customers.
您想取悦您的客户。
But the point is, let’s say Meta has a 1 percent failure rate in trying to do this, which would be an amazingly good performance.
但关键是，假设 Meta 尝试做到这一点的失败率为 1%，这将是一个令人惊讶的良好表现。
Very hard to pull off.
很难实现。
That’s fine.
没关系。
Oh, that’d be incredible.
哦，那太不可思议了。
They should get a bonus.
他们应该得到奖金。
They’re sued out of existence in that scenario because they have billions of users and 1 percent —
在这种情况下，他们被起诉，因为他们拥有数十亿用户和百分之一的用户——
No, no, no.
不，不，不。
Yes.
是的。
How much are these lawsuits good for?
这些诉讼有多少好处？
1 percent what?
百分之一什么？
Wait, are you saying 1 percent are harmed?
等等，你是说 1% 的人受到伤害？
Or are you saying 1 percent are on underage?
或者你是说百分之一是未成年人？
Let’s say 99 out of 100 times when the parent doesn’t want the kid on, the kid isn’t on, but there’s a failure rate of 1 percent and then the parents can sue.
假设当家长不想让孩子开机时，100 次中有 99 次是孩子不开机，但失败率为 1%，然后家长可以起诉。
That’d be incredible.
那太不可思议了。
Oh my god, I would be so —
天哪，我会这样 ——
The company would disappear.
公司就会消失。
There’d be lawsuits.
会有诉讼。
No. If any company achieved 95 percent, let’s say, then they would have some protection from liability because clearly, they are doing a lot to age-gate.
不会。假设任何一家公司达到了 95%，那么他们就会获得一些免于承担责任的保护，因为显然，他们在年龄限制方面做了很多工作。
But right now, you go to most middle schools, everyone has an Instagram account, so they’re doing nothing now.
但现在，你去大多数中学，每个人都有一个 Instagram 帐户，所以他们现在什么都不做。
Whereas, if they could get to 95 percent, I would say, “Wow, thank you, Mark Zuckerberg.
然而，如果他们能达到 95%，我会说，“哇，谢谢你，马克·扎克伯格。
You really are doing what you said.
你确实是按照你说的做的。
You really are trying to keep underage users off.” But right now there’s nothing.
你们确实是在试图阻止未成年用户。”但现在什么都没有。
There’s no obstacle to signing up.
注册没有任何障碍。
In two years, won’t AI make most age-gating just flat-out impossible for everything?
两年后，人工智能不会让大多数年龄限制变得不可能吗？
No. There are all kinds of ways that you could do age-gating, either by building something into the hardware, building something into the software.
不。您可以通过多种方式进行年龄限制，无论是在硬件中构建某些内容，还是在软件中构建某些内容。
There are so many different ways of age verification now that they have their own trade industry.
现在有很多不同的年龄验证方式，他们有自己的贸易行业。
There’s the Age Verification Providers Association.
有年龄验证提供者协会。
There are a lot of different methods.
有很多不同的方法。
What I would like to see is, governments could mandate just as they mandate that bars and casinos have to check age.
我希望看到的是，政府可以强制要求，就像强制酒吧和赌场必须检查年龄一样。
I assume there’s some law that puts the responsibility on the casino or the strip club or whatever, that these places the government said, “You have to enforce the age limit.” Right?
我认为有一些法律将责任归咎于赌场或脱衣舞俱乐部或其他什么地方，这些地方政府说，“你必须执行年龄限制。”正确的？
Sure, but fakes are very easy.
当然可以，但是假货很容易出现。
Even in my day, fakes were easy.
即使在我那个时代，假货也很容易出现。
Fine.
美好的。
The point is, it’s not effortless to walk in.
重点是，走进去并不容易。
You could get caught.
你可能会被抓住。
I’m not saying we have to get 100 percent.
我并不是说我们必须达到 100%。
If we can get to 90 percent to 95 percent, I would be thrilled.
如果我们能达到 90% 到 95%，我会很兴奋。
Right now, we’re at zero.
现在，我们的状态为零。
There’s just no obstacle.
没有任何障碍。
That’s what I’m saying.
这就是我所说的。
If the government were to mandate that Facebook and all these platforms — they have to do age verification but not mandate the way.
如果政府要强制要求 Facebook 和所有这些平台 ——他们必须进行年龄验证，但不强制要求方式。
In Louisiana, they said for porn, you have to show your driver’s license.
在路易斯安那州，他们说看色情片，你必须出示你的驾驶执照。
I don’t agree with that.
我不同意这一点。
It shouldn’t be.
不应该的。
The government says you have to show a government ID to use — I don’t want that.
政府说你必须出示政府颁发的身份证才能使用 —— 我不想这样。
But they could say to Pornhub, “You have to provide age-gating.
但他们可以对 Pornhub 说：“你必须提供年龄限制。
We leave it up to you how, but it has to be 90 percent or something reliable.” What I’m imagining is Pornhub and Meta would offer, “Here are five different ways that you could establish your age.
我们让你自己决定如何做，但必须达到 90% 或可靠的水平。”我想象的是 Pornhub 和 Meta 会提供的，“这里有五种不同的方法来确定你的年龄。
Pick one.” What do you think about that?
选一个吧。”你对此有何看法？
I don’t think it’s going to matter much.
我认为这没有多大关系。
I think a lot of —
我认为很多 ——
Because of AI?
因为人工智能？
Not only because of AI.
不仅仅是因为人工智能。
There’s a long history, as you know, of trying to stop what your kids do, even before social media.
如您所知，试图阻止孩子做的事情由来已久，甚至在社交媒体出现之前。
Things matter a bit.
事情有点重要。
The effects of those interventions, they strike me as pretty small.
在我看来，这些干预措施的影响非常小。
What percentage of kids shoplift regularly, would you say?
你认为经常入店行窃的孩子比例是多少？
Most kids are shoplifting every day, would you say?
你说大多数孩子每天都在商店行窃吗？
No, not at all.
不，一点也不。
It’s a physical thing.
这是物理上的事情。
Right.
正确的。
The point is that with shoplifting, you can do it but it’s risky.
关键是，入店行窃是可以的，但有风险。
There’s some possible cost.
有一些可能的成本。
Whereas if we said, “You know what?
而如果我们说：“你知道吗？
Total honor system, no enforcement, no cameras, no punishment,” I think shoplifting will go way, way up.
完全的荣誉制度，没有执法，没有摄像头，没有惩罚。”我认为入店行窃将会大大增加。
If kids could just walk into the store and take whatever they want, shoplifting would go up.
如果孩子们可以走进商店并拿走他们想要的任何东西，那么入店行窃就会增加。
Napster shoplifting was huge, right?
Napster 商店行窃案规模很大，对吗？
That was the online version.
那是在线版本。
Exactly.
确切地。
That’s right.
这是正确的。
When there is zero cost for taking something, people take things.
当获取某物的成本为零时，人们就会获取该东西。
In the same way here, when there is absolute zero cost, you can lie as much as you want about your age, and nothing will ever happen to you.
同样的道理，当成本绝对为零时，你可以在年龄上撒谎，但什么也不会发生在你身上。
What I’d like to see is, let’s say Meta took this seriously, and they had a policy of, “If we find out that you are under 13, then your account will be closed, and you won’t be able to come back on until you’re 13½ or 14.” There’ll be some penalty.
我希望看到的是，假设 Meta 认真对待这一问题，他们制定了一项政策，“如果我们发现您未满 13 岁，那么您的帐户将被关闭，直到您年满 13.5 岁或 14 岁之前您将无法重新登录。”会有一些惩罚。
There will be some penalty for lying about your age.
谎报年龄将会受到一些处罚。
That would really change the incentives of the kids.
这确实会改变孩子们的动机。
An excellent episode.
精彩的一集。
Thank you, Jon.
谢谢你，乔恩。
Repeating to everyone, here is Jon’s book: The Anxious Generation: How the Great Rewiring of Childhood Is Causing an Epidemic of Mental Illness.
向大家重复一遍，这是乔恩的书：《焦虑的一代：童年的伟大重塑如何导致精神疾病的流行》。
Thanks so much, Tyler.
非常感谢，泰勒。
I hope listeners will sign up for the After Babel Substack.
我希望听众能够报名参加 After Babel Substack。
It’s free.
它是免费的。
I hope they’ll enjoy the book, and I know they enjoy hearing the way you question people.
我希望他们会喜欢这本书，而且我知道他们喜欢听到你提问的方式。
It’s different from everyone else’s.
这与其他人的不同。
I almost never get worked up.
我几乎从不生气。
Somehow, Tyler, you got me worked up.
不知何故，泰勒，你让我很兴奋。
It was great fun.
非常有趣。
I am flattered by that.
我对此感到受宠若惊。
Thank you very much, Jon, for coming on.
非常感谢乔恩的到来。
Photo Credit: Jayne Riew
照片来源：Jayne Riew